!! li 



:l!; 



n « ' 



['!<>') I 



:!!!!! 



; j i f! 



mm\ 



;! 



lii^^^ 



IIPI! 






; I;!:- 






mi; 



plili^flll 






II iii 



!tl( 1 

■ i ; li iJ 



<\l 



iiii 

I 



I 



IJftliii 



I.-.' r 



I 



i|;J! 

■iiiiii'^i^'PfiiPlip 



;!iii!i!llii 



iliJ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



m 



tl/jijl'iiff!'' 



'! 



tl 



I 



''If! 

ii 

if 

m 






niiiliP 



III 






5 ) 

"•I 






Hilt 



rip 



mi 



mm. 



mi 



m 



I 



M\ 



lf!f 



{I 






: > 



if! 



;!l 



'< ' 



• »' 



!(- 



iiii 






:ilii! 






i 

lliili 



I'll:: 



ill 

iiliii Iiii 



lit 




Class ic XnS ^ 
Book J ; : 51 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 



The 
Chief Points of Difference 

Between the 

Catholic and Protestant 
Creeds 



BY THE 

REV. F. LAUN 



NEW YORK 
JOSEPH F. WAGNER 



REMIGIUS LAFORT, S.T.D. 

Censor 

Umprintatur 

JOHN CARDINAL FARLEY 

Archbishop of New York 

Nkw York, October i8, 1915 



Copyright, 191 5, by Joseph F. Wagner (Inc.), New York 

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. 

DEC 27 iyi5 

©CI,A4i82ii2 
">V7; / • 



EDITOR'S PREFACE 

A THOROUGH discussion of the points of difference is what 
is chiefly required by bona fide inquirers from without the 
fold, and to such inquirers this book is dedicated. It is 
hoped that to such inquirers no expression in this book 
will appear aggressive. In the impersonal atmosphere of a 
book of this kind, plain speaking is required and permis- 
sible, but there was far from the mind of the author any 
intention to be unkind or uncharitable. The attacks upon 
erroneous belief should not be misunderstood to be attacks 
on erroneous believers. 

Also to inquirers from within the fold this book will be 
helpful, in enlightening them upon important matters of 
faith, and in enabling them to enlighten others who, with a 
good will, ask them for information. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Where is the True Doctrine? i 

Catholic Teaching Uniform 3 

Ceremonies 6 

Liberty of Conscience 9 

II. Holy Scripture 12 

Translations of the Bible 13 

The Canon of the Bible 16 

The Vulgate 18 

Luther's Translation 22 

Interpretation of the Bible 23 

Individual Interpretation 28 

The Right to Read the Bible 32 

The Bible in the Middle Ages 35 

Protestant Opinion of the Bible . 37 

Oral Traditions 39 

III. The Church and Ecclesiastical Authority 41 

Authority of the Pope 42 

Origin of the Papacy 46 

The Primacy of St. Peter 49 

Papal Jurisdiction and Influence 52 

The Papacy and Civilization 56 

The Papacy and Civil Government 59 

The Papacy and the Church 60 

Papal InfallibiHty 62 

The Powers of the Pope 65 

Spiritual and Temporal Authority 68 

Persecutions of Heretics 71 

Persecutions of Catholics 74 

IV. The Forgiveness of Sins 76 

Sin 80 

The Catholic View of Sin 84 

The Forgiveness of Sins 86 

Indulgences 89 

Purgatory 91 

Indulgences AppUed to Souls in Purgatory 93 

The Protestant Plenary Indulgence 95 



vi CONTENTS 

Page 

V. Faith and Good Works 98 

The Object of Faith loi 

The CathoKc Understanding of Faith 103 

Faith and Good Works 105 

The Commandments of God and of the Church .... 107 

Outward Practices iii 

The EvangeHcal Counsels 112 

Self-Righteousness 116 

VI. The Veneration of Saints 119 

The Veneration of Mary 121 

The Immaculate Conception 125 

Rehcs of the Saints 126 

Pilgrimages 129 

Vn. The Sacraments 131 

Sacraments and Blessings 135 

Confirmation 139 

Holy Orders 140 

The Sacrament of Penance 144 

Protestant Confession of Sins 146 

Compulsory Confession 147 

The Clergy and Auricular Confession 149 

Satisfaction for Sins 152 

Matrimony 155 

Indissolubihty of Marriage 157 

Compulsory Cehbacy 160 

Extreme Unction 162 

Baptism 164 

The Holy Eucharist 165 

Transubstantiation 167 

The Sacrifice of the Mass 170 

Priesthood 171 

The Renewal of Christ's Sacrifice 172 

The Office of the Priesthood 176 

Mass and Sermon 178 

The Fruits of the Mass 179 

Communion under one Elind 182 



The Chief Points of Difference 

BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT 
CREEDS 



I. WHERE IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE? 

The Protestant Assertion. We call ourselves evangelical Christians, 
because we adhere to the teaching of the Gospel contained in Holy 
Scripture. After being long in obscurity, these saving truths were 
brought into prominence again by the Reformation. 

The Catholic Reply, We Catholics believe and confess 
that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our only Redeemer 
and Mediator, founded one holy Church which, being Christ's 
own institution, has in every age preserved the truths that 
He revealed, pure and inviolate. 

We believe and confess that this Church neither is nor 
can be any other than the Catholic Church, which can prove 
itself to have been always the One, Holy, Catholic or uni- 
versal, and Apostolic communion of those who hold the 
true faith in Christ. 

The CathoHc Church has ever adhered to the Gospel, 
which would have perished long ago but for the Church, 
whereas Protestantism dates only from the sixteenth cen- 
tury. 

Dr. Martin Luther, the leader in the Reformation, did 
not bring to light truths that had been forgotten; what he 
did was to substitute his own opinions for ancient truths. 
He did not rediscover the Bible, but altered and expounded 
it to suit his own views, thus giving rise to many errors. 
He was not divinely commissioned, but assumed the right to 
judge and reform God's Church. 



2 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

The Protestant Assertion, The Bible had long been almost forgotten, 
and in its place all kinds of innovations and all manner of false doctrine 
regarding the most important articles of faith had been accepted by the 
Church. These innovations and erroneous doctrines are still upheld 
by the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Catholic Reply. Christ uttered the promises: '^I am 
with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" 
(Matth. xxviii, 20), and: *^The Spirit of truth . . . shall 
abide with you" (John xiv, 17, cf. xvi, 13). Hence the Gospel 
could never be lost, and the Catholic Church has preserved 
Christ's doctrine as the truth necessary to salvation not 
only in the letter, but in the spirit (2 Cor. iii, 6). With un- 
erring decision she has detected and exposed all false teach- 
ers who adhered to the letter rather than to the spirit of 
Christ. She has never accepted any erroneous doctrine and, 
therefore, whoever asserts that she still upholds such doc- 
trines, calumniates her. 

The Protestant Assertion. The most important points upon which 
the Roman Catholic Church teaches false doctrines are the follow- 
ing: I. Holy Scripture; II. The Church and her authority; HI. The 
forgiveness of sins; IV. Faith and good works; V. The worship of 
saints; VI. The Holy Eucharist. 

These points will be dealt with individually in the fol- 
lowing chapters. 

COMMENTARY 

If we as Catholics were to admit that the Holy Church, 
founded on earth by Christ, could ever have forgotten or 
lost His Gospel, we should be denying the truth of our Lord's 
own words. Far from forgetting the Gospel, the Church 
has made countless sacrifices in order to preserve the truths 
entrusted to her, and she has kept them intact down to the 
present day. It was she that gave the Holy Bible to Chris- 
tians, and she has ever been its faithful guardian. "Sh^ alone 
can know and testify to the character of the Bible, for she 
existed before it did and she alone was appointed by God 
to protect and interpret it. She knew the story of our Lord's 



WHERE IS TEE TRUE DOCTRINE? 3 

life and knew all His doctrines before a word of them had 
been committed to writing; she used the Our Father before 
it could be read in St. Matthew's Gospel; she administered 
baptism and the other sacraments in conformity with Christ's 
instructions before any of the Apostles had compiled a 
record of them. Guided by the Holy Spirit she has ever been 
most vigilant to prevent any tampering with the word of 
God. She has preferred to undergo grievous persecution 
rather than tolerate any error in faith. Never have any kinds 
of innovations devised by men^ and jalse doctrines regarding 
the most important articles of faith been accepted by the 
Catholic Church in place of God's holy word. 

Thus it is a complete distortion of the truth for Protes- 
tants to declare that they are evangelical Christians because 
they adhere to the teaching of the Gospel, which, they assert, 
was and is ignored by the Catholic Church. The truth is 
rather that now for nearly two thousand years Catholics have 
loyally adhered to the Gospel teaching given by Christ to 
His Church and preserved in her by the Apostles and their 
successors. The Protestant Church came into existence 
only in the sixteenth century, and none of the tenets in 
which Protestantism differs from Catholicism can be shown 
to be based upon the Gospel of Christ. 

Catholic Teaching Uniform 

Protestants say that it is necessary to distinguish carefully between 
the genuinely Christian element in Catholicism, as it appears in the writ- 
ings of many Catholic theologians, in some popular devotional works, 
and in the Uves of some Catholics, and, on the other hand, the "Roman 
errors" which in the course of time have found their way into the Church, 
chiefly through the fault of the Popes, and which have recently gained 
the ascendency. 

In answer to this statement we maintain that there is 
no difference at all between ^^ genuinely Christian" and 
*' Roman" Catholicism. Neither the Popes nor the much 
slandered Jesuits have another catechism than that in 
general use, nor do they teach other articles of faith, other 
morality, or another way to heaven than those inculcated 



4 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

by the learned and edifying Catholic works extolled by 
Protestants. In every age there have been lukewarm 
Catholics ready to make concessions to outsiders, instead 
of holding fast to the real doctrines and acknowledging the 
claims of the Catholic Church. Such persons have alto- 
gether ceased to belong to her, and hence they are prone 
to go forth from our midst (i John ii, 19); whereas naturally 
those who antagonize the Catholic faith find it to their pur- 
pose to regard such persons as genuine Catholics. 

Let there be no misunderstanding about the matter: the 
object of hostility and hatred is not any alleged erroneous 
teaching of the Popes nor the asserted cunning of the Jesuits, 
but it is invariably the Catholic Church, the Church founded 
by Christ Himself, and her One, Holy, Catholic, and Apos- 
tolic doctrine. 

Protestants say that in every age there have been among Catholics 
wise and prudent teachers, and not a few good Christians who put to 
shame many ''evangelical" Christians, with whom they are united in 
charity since they approximate closely to them in the faith. On the 
other hand, Catholics dominated by the spirit of the Popes regard Protes- 
tants as heretics, that is to say, not as true Christians, worthy only of 
abhorrence, and this feeling of hostility reveals itself in pubUc life and 
daily intercourse. 

It is true that in every age there have been great saints 
among Catholics, and men such as St. Benedict, St. Francis 
of Assisi, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis Xavier have 
never been counted their own by ^^evangelical'' Christians. 
These great saints were far from professing the doctrines 
characteristic of Protestantism; they all laboured with un- 
feigned humility to perfect their own souls; they served 
God zealously with good works, but they were invariably 
scrupulously obedient to the Catholic Church. 

A Catholic who truly lives and thinks according to the 
spirit of his Church will never abhor one who professes an- 
other faith, nor wiH he treat such a man as an enemy. He 
is able to distinguish between the error and the person who 
errs, just as he can discriminate between culpable and 



WHERE IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE? 5 

inculpable ignorance. The Church, being the divinely ap- 
pointed teacher of truth, can under no circumstances what- 
ever accept any other truth than that revealed to her by 
God. Should she call error truth, she would be false to the 
words of Christ, to the testimony of the Apostles, and to 
herself, and when any one by his own fault persists obsti- 
nately in error she deals with him in accordance with the 
rules laid down even by Christ and the Apostles (Cf., e.g., 
Titus iii, 10). 

The Catholic Church, far from teaching us to abhor as 
heretics those who have grown up in inculpable error, bids 
us love them as brethren; it would be a grievous sin against 
Christian charity to persecute those who do not agree with 
us on matters of religion. We will not discuss here the ques- 
tion as to where indeed hostility and hatred prevail against 
people professing another faith. 

Protestants say that there is a great difference between the state- 
ments found in ancient ecclesiastical documents or made at the present 
day by honest Catholics, on the one hand, and the innovations introduced 
by the papacy into the public worship of the Church on the other. For 
instance, they maintain that in the decisions of the Council of Trent 
the doctrine of indulgences and of the merit of good works is not stated 
nearly so bluntly as in the papal bulls. They admit that the official 
utterances of the Church contain much that is good and beautiful, 
though it is intermingled, they say, with erroneous and disastrous teach- 
ing. They recognize the presence of this beneficial element particu- 
larly in our Catholic catechisms and devotional works. 

In reply to this assertion we may say emphatically that 
the Pope can introduce nothing contrary to faith into the 
pubUc worship of the Church, and hence there cannot possi- 
bly be any discrepancy between the teaching of the Church 
and the faith of honest Catholics. It is a strange fallacy to 
suppose that papal bulls may contain a doctrine differing 
from that taught by the Council of Trent or from that uni- 
versally accepted and handed down in the Church. No 
CathoKc catechism in any part of the world contains a sen- 
tence contrary to a papal bull. In marked contrast to this 
unity it is known that Protestant catechisms and religious 



6 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

works of every kind agree in their doctrine neither with one 
another, nor with the teaching of the Reformation, nor with 
the obvious meaning of Holy Scripture; while CathoHcs 
have not a single article of faith that has not at all times been 
universally accepted and upheld by the Catholic Church. 
In a "Protestant Protest against the Evangelical Alliance'' 
{Volkszeitung, 1899, No. 181) Dr. Max Oberbreyer wrote: 
"In our camp there are incessant disputes regarding the 
chief matters of faith. Was not Leo XIII, the great advo- 
cate of peace, perfectly right when he contrasted the solid 
unity of the world-wide Catholic Church with our divisions? 
Fieldmarshal Moltke, a truly loyal Protestant, declared 
that the fact that the Catholic Church possessed a supreme 
head assured her preeminence on accoxmt of her certainty 
regarding dogma. Moltke's inference was that Protestants 
must eventually return to the Cathohc Church, but many 
Protestants of our day hope to prop up the crumbling ruins 
of Protestantism by stirring up the masses against Rome. 
Their ejfforts will fail, for the violent assaults of Protestant 
preachers tend to disgust many of their own persuasion and 
convince them that a church that resorts to vituperation 
and slander cannot possibly be the true Church of Christ." 

The utmost pains are taken by oiu: antagonists to inspire 
the yoimg with a horror of Rome, to fill them with a blind 
hatred of the papacy and with contempt for everything 
Cathohc, so that they may never be tempted to make in- 
quiries for themselves and to find out what the Church really 
is and what are her history and her aims. 

Ceremonies 

Protestants say that ceremonies constitute the chief part of Catholi- 
cism and that in them there is a large admixture of superstition. Such 
Catholics as are true Christians cannot of course be satisfied with merely 
external ceremonies, and have recourse therefore to the remains of evan- 
gehcal truth that still Hnger in their Church. People of this class happily 
always exist, and so long as they do not influence the Cathohc Church as 
a whole, the Popes allow them to serve God quietly; indeed, they are 
often employed in converting the heathen or in winning Protestants over 
to Catholicism. As soon, however, as they become prominent in the 



WHERE IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE? 7 

Catholic Church they meet with persecution, and no pains are spared to 
induce them to abandon the truth and to make an at least ostensible 
recantation of their alleged errors. Mournful instances of such a hne of 
action occur in the history of men such as' Francis Speira, Fenelon, 
Noailles, the Jansenists, Sailer, and his followers, Boos, etc. 

If the members of the Protestant Church could boast of no other ad- 
vantage than freedom from the burden laid on conscience, which op- 
presses the noblest and best Roman Catholics, they would have good 
reason for thankfulness. 

A Protestant might certainly be amazed at the astuteness 
of Rome and aghast at the action of the Popes, if they used 
precisely the honest and pious Catholics, **so long as these 
do not influence the Catholic Church as a whole," to en- 
snare worthy evangelicals, and submitted these same per- 
sons to persecution *^as soon as they become prominent in 
the Church." 

Does the Protestant who utters these accusations believe 
men like Fenelon and Sailer to have been at heart inclined 
to Protestantism? Let him read Fenelon's Treatise on the 
Authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. Can he imagine Fenelon's 
submission to the decision condemning one of his works to 
have been extorted from him by force, when the great 
bishop himself wrote on the subject: '^In what way did I 
offend those who charge that it costs me a great effort to 
subject my feeble intellect to the authority of the Holy See" ? 

What justification is there for the statement that true 
Christians, anxious for their own salvation, cannot find 
peace of mind in the doctrines of Catholicism and are forced 
to have recourse to the remnants of evangehcal truth still 
Hngering in the Catholic Church? 

Such a statement is an utter misrepresentation of the 
truth. We are told that some remnants of evangelical truth 
still Unger in the CathoUc Church, when in matter of fact all 
the really evangehcal truths retained by non-CathoUc sects 
have been drawn from the Catholic Church, the Church 
which has neither lost nor obscured any single one of them. 
If it were otherwise, Christ's own promise that the Holy 
Ghost should guide His Church into all truth would not be 



8 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

fulfilled. Luther discovered neither new nor forgotten 
truths; he did nothing but deny and abandon much that 
had been believed and practised in the Church of Christ 
from the time of the Apostles onward. If the CathoUc 
Church were to vanish out of the world it would leave a gap 
that nothing else could fill. No one would be then in a posi- 
tion to declare with certainty who Christ was, what the 
Bible is, or what constitutes grace and sin. It would be im- 
possible to discover the truth amidst the inextricable con- 
fusion of opinions put forward by Protestant theologians 
and preachers. If their opinions and theories, however, were 
all to vanish, would the world be deprived of any truth? 

We are told, further, that ceremonies form the chief part 
of the Catholic religion and that there is in them a large ad- 
mixture of superstition. Never have ceremonies been of 
paramount importance in the Catholic Church. She is, 
however, wisely aware that her members are human beings 
made up of body and soul, and that access to the soul is 
gained through the senses. One cannot draw water with- 
out a vessel to hold it, nor can one receive truth unless it is 
clothed in words, nor grace without a visible sign. Outward 
forms of some kind or another are indispensable to the mind 
of man. The Catholic Church has ever aimed at supplying 
precious vessels to contain her priceless treasures, and for 
this reason she surrounds her pubUc worship with stately 
ceremonial intended to lead the minds of her children to 
appreciate and thankfully accept what is bestowed and 
symbolized by the outward forms. Ceremonies are the 
means of raising men's thoughts to God and of bringing 
down divine graces; they are not an end in themselves. Of 
course, no Catholic can quiet his conscience with purely ex- 
ternal rites; every child learns this in his catechism. The 
Catholic Church exerts herself to combat any superstition 
that may become attached to the outward performance of 
ritual; it is a well-known fact that a tendency to supersti- 
tion is deeply rooted in the masses and easily spread. Protes- 
tantism has surely not succeeded in eliminating it. 



WHERE IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE? g 

Liberty of Conscience 

Further, we are told that if Protestants could boast of no 
other advantage than freedom from the burden laid on the 
conscience of Catholics, they would have good reason for 
thankfulness. 

Do Protestants really enjoy complete freedom from every 
constraint of thought? Is a Protestant candidate for con- 
firmation allowed to interpret the Bible in his own way, and 
may he act in accordance with his opinion? If he is taught 
to do so he may not, it is true, become a Catholic, but neither 
will he long continue to be a Protestant or even a Christian. 
Any one desirous of knowing Luther's views on liberty of 
conscience should study his works, as also the constitutions 
of the various evangelical churches. In his Table Talks 
(Latin ed., p. 288) Luther says: "After admonishing a per- 
son two or three times, I will denounce him from the pulpit 
as excommunicate, should he not obey me; so that he may 
be regarded as a dog, and if he die thus, he may like a dog 
be buried in a dimgheap.'' In the regulations of an early 
Protestant sovereign, Duke Christian, severe penalties are 
imposed upon the excommunicate, no one is permitted to 
eat or drink with them, they must not be admitted at an 
inn, they are to be buried in unconsecrated ground, and are 
to be cursed and damned with all the devils in hell (Zelle 
ed., p. 91). In other regulations for the evangelical churches 
there are similar passages regarding the treatment of heretics 
and notorious sinners (Bohmer, Jus eccL Protest., 5, 39, 
§ 55). Did not Luther actually exhort his followers "to 
seize the pope and all the rabble of adherents to his idolatry, 
and tear out their tongues by the roots, as blasphemers 
against God,'' and "to drown all the papal rabble, all the 
abominable knaves together"? The leaders of the Ref- 
ormation regarded it as a matter of course that the Catholic 
Church ought to be completely destroyed and exterminated. 
Loud in their condemnation of restraints on conscience, 
they themselves imposed such restraints without scruple. 



lo THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

DoUinger remarks that it is quite a mistake to describe the 
Reformation as aiming at hberty of conscience; its tendency 
was in the opposite direction {Kirche, p. 68). 

Protestants would do well to refrain from asserting that 
liberty of conscience is found only in their midst, and re- 
straint prevalent in the Catholic Church, but people at the 
present day like to hear the same things that Luther told 
the people of his time. '^What gave Protestantism its great 
attraction," writes DoUinger (who is surely an intelligent 
and impartial witness), "was that its teaching revealed an 
easier road to heaven. ..." It was willingly assumed that 
the people had been deprived of the sweet consolation 
afforded by the Gospel, in place of which was put the un- 
comfortable doctrine that they were bound to keep the 
commandments of God. According to Brenz, a Protestant 
writer, freedom from the obligation of penance and of fast- 
ing was the bait that won the common people over to 
Protestantism. They were not slow to identify liberty of 
conscience, and the new religion itself with freedom to disre- 
gard all ecclesiastical and moral laws. Luther himself says 
{GaL Brief J Walch, 3, 11 73) that "the CathoHc theologians 
are asses if they maintain that Christ abolished only the 
ceremonies of the Old Testament and not also the ten 
commandments." 

What is really the constraint imposed upon the conscience 
of a Catholic? None other but God's own word and com- 
mandment, and Christianity consists precisely in the vol- 
imtary acceptation by man of a divine revelation, of divine 
commandments, and of a Church divinely founded for the 
purpose of bringing men to salvation. Whoever accepts this 
definition must necessarily regard God's revelations and laws 
as binding upon his conscience. This is far more obvious 
than that a soldier, who has of his own accord enlisted in 
the army, must endure all hardships and restraints of 
military service. A Catholic knows that in obeying the 
Church he is obeying God; this is why in Holy Scrip- 
ture and in the writings of the Fathers, refusal of belief 



WHERE IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE? ii 

and disobedience to the Church of Christ was regarded as 
a grievous sin. 

Our pious and noble men are not under constraint, for it 
is an honour and a joy, not a burdensome duty, to obey 
God's word and His Holy Church. The yoke that we bear 
is easy and the burden laid upon us is Hght and sweet. 
Half-hearted and lukewarm Christians who long for for- 
bidden fruits may indeed be heard to complain, but they 
belong not to our pious and noble members. These are 
rather the countless saints of every age, of both sexes, and 
of all nations; they all at the hour of death rejoiced at hav- 
ing been permitted to live and die as children of the Catholic 
Church. Read the story of their lives and see if you can 
discover any feeling of restraint imposed upon their con- 
science, or of any other feeling than tender love, heartfelt 
gratitude, and loyal submission to their holy mother, the 
Church. Read the experiences of those who, after growing 
up as Protestants, have returned to the bosom of the Church. 
Did Luther ever feel such happiness after he abandoned 
her? He tells quite a different story when he relates how 
his heart quaked, how he could not himself believe what he 
preached to others {EisL Tischr., 76, 415). The last years 
of his life were disturbed by anxieties, doubts, and by qualms 
of conscience. We may read in the second volimie of Bol- 
linger's History of the Reformation what sort of consolation 
the new religion had for Melanchthon and many others of 
the early preachers and adherents of Protestantism. 



II. HOLY SCRIPTURE 

The Protestant Assertion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches 
erroneous doctrines regarding the Bible, inasmuch as she maintains it 
to be of itself insuflficient to guide us in the way of salvation and that it 
needs the support of tradition, viz., of ecclesiastical customs, practices, 
and regulations. 

The Catholic Reply. The Catholic Church teaches that 
the Bible is a collection of books, written under the inspira- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, and containing therefore the word 
of God. Many Protestants have ceased to believe this. 
It is true that the Catholic Church maintains the Bible to 
be of itself insufficient to guide us in the way of salvation. 
Christ however did not order His Apostles to distribute 
Bibles, but to preach; nor did He bid His followers to read, 
but to hear the word of God (cf. Matth. xxviii, 19; Luke x, 
16). When we speak of tradition we do not mean "eccle- 
siastical customs, practices, and regulations," which are of 
human origin, but revealed truths, taught orally by the 
Apostles and handed down from generation to generation. 

Moreover, every Protestant who reads the Bible has pre- 
viously received some oral instruction which serves for his 
criterion in interpreting what he reads. 

The Protestant Assertion. Holy Scripture is enough to guide us in the 
way of salvation, for "all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, 
to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be 
perfect, furnished to every good work" (2 Tim. iii, 15-17). On the other 
hand, the word of God does not refer us to human regulations such as 
the Catholic traditions, but warns us against them since they lead us 
astray and are fraught with danger to our souls (Matth. xv, 9; Gal. i, 9). 

The Catholic Reply. The Catholic Church fully endorses 
St. Paul's words to Timothy, but they do not mean that the 
Bible alone will secure the salvation of every individual who 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 13 

reads it. Timothy himself owed his faith in Christ to the 
Apostle's preaching, not to reading the Old Testament, and 
the New Testament did not yet exist. In Matth. xv, 9 our 
Lord is warning the people against the doctrines of the 
Pharisees, but He refers to the genuine traditions of the Jews 
in Matth. xxiii, 2. In Gal. i, 9 St. Paul speaks of false 
teachers, not of the doctrines of the Church and the Apostles; 
on the contrary, he expressly exhorts the Christians to ad- 
here to the latter. Again, in 2 Thess. ii, 14 he writes: "There- 
fore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you 
have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.'' We are 
not referred to rules laid down by men but solely to God's 
word; but we value and respect the word of God equally, 
whether recorded in writing or handed down orally. 

Translations of the Bible 

The Protestant Assertion, The Roman Catholic Church teaches erro- 
neous doctrines when she maintains that a simple Christian cannot un- 
derstand Holy Scripture^ and therefore may, by reading it, be led into 
fatal error. For this reason it is considered inexpedient for the laity to 
read the Bible, and the Popes have frequently prohibited its translation 
into the vernacular and have condemned and suppressed such translations. 

The Catholic Reply. We read in Holy Scripture itself that 
it is not easily understood. In several instances Christ's 
disciples failed to understand passages of the Old Testament 
(cf. Luke xxiv, 25; Acts viii, 27-35), ^'^^ His own hearers 
misunderstood what our Lord said (cf. Luke viii, 10; John 
vi, 61, etc.). Experience shows that the indiscriminate read- 
ing of the Bible has caused many people to fall into lamen- 
table errors. The Catholic Church has never taught that it 
is inexpedient for the laity to read the Bible. She has, 
however, with great prudence laid down rules for the use of 
Holy Scripture. No Pope has ever in general terms for- 
bidden it to be translated, but improper translations, likely 
to foster and spread erroneous doctrines, have from time to 
time been suppressed. In acting thus the Popes properly 
protected the word of God against falsification. 



14 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

The Protestant Assertion, The Protestant Church teaches that Holy 
Scripture contains all that it is necessary to know and to believe in order 
to attain salvation, and that it contains this, moreover, in a form intelli- 
gible to any reader honestly in search of truth. Therefore, if men are to 
be able to die a blessed death, it behooves them to read the Bible, to grow 
in the comprehension of it, to believe it, and to live in accordance with 
its teaching. 

The Catholic Reply. If Holy Scripture dispensed the truth 
in so obvious a form, it follows that every reader would in- 
evitably discover in it the same truth. This is not the case 
even with regard to the chief articles of faith. The Catholic 
Church has always taught that it is most beneficial and ex- 
pedient for all who have sufiicient education and are in the 
right dispositions to read and meditate upon Holy Scrip- 
ture, especially the Gospels. 

The Protestant Assertion. The Bible is intended for the poor and ig- 
norant as well as for the learned, for "the testimony of the Lord is faith- 
fiil, giving wisdom to little ones" (Ps. xviii, 8); it is to be read by the 
young as well as the old, since St. Paul praises Timothy for having from 
infancy known the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. iii, 15), and we read in Ps. 
cxviii, 9 : "By what doth a young man correct his way? Even by keeping 
Thy words." 

The Catholic Reply. In the Catholic Church there is for 
learned and unlearned alike precisely the same faith, the 
same teaching on morals, and the same reverence for 
Holy Scripture. Amongst Protestants, however, the Bible 
is made to yield different standards for learned and 
unlearned. 

In the Psalms the expressions 'Hhe word of the Lord" 
and the 'testimony of the Lord" do not refer exclusively 
to the written word, but even if this were the case the pas- 
sages quoted would mean nothing more than that this word 
is good and beneficial. The Holy Scriptures which Timothy 
knew from his infancy must have been the Old Testament. 
He learnt through oral instruction the references to Christ 
in the Old Testament. 

Many Protestants, especially those teaching the young, 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 15 

do not believe that the reading of all parts of the Bible is 
good for children. Catholic children are well instructed in 
Holy Scripture, as it forms the basis of all their rehgious 
teaching. 

COMMENTARY 

The Catholic Church values and reverences the Bible as 
a divinely inspired book, whereas modern Protestant scholars 
regard it as of purely human origin. It is held by them that 
scientific theologians of the present day are convinced that 
the Holy Scriptures were not inspired by God, that many 
classical works of Greek, Roman, and later origin are superior 
to the Old Testament; that the Bible is full of errors and con- 
tradictions, and even in instructing the young it should be 
emphasized that it is not infallible. Against this view Pope 
Leo XIII in 1893 proclaimed publicly that God Himself 
was the original author of the Bible, and that it points out 
with certainty the way of salvation. Is then the Bible 
treated nowadays with greater respect by Protestants or by 
Catholics? In addition to Holy Scripture we accept, of 
course, oral tradition; this, however, is not a collection of 
human regulations, but, like the Bible, divinely revealed 
truth. Without tradition no one would know what properly 
belongs to Holy Scripture, and it is only when the genuine 
ecclesiastical tradition is set aside that false human tradi- 
tion takes its place. For instance, a person who believes 
St. John's Gospel to be divinely inspired but rejects the books 
of Machabees, bases his belief not on Holy Scripture, in 
which there is not a word on the subject, but on Luther; 
consequently he relies on the word of a human being. St. 
Peter warned the faithful that in St. PauFs epistles ^^are 
certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned 
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to 
their own destruction'' (2 Peter iii, 16). 

Moreover, a great and saintly scholar such as St. Augus- 
tine (ep, 119, cap. 21) acknowledges frankly that in Holy 
Scripture there is more that he cannot understand than 



i6 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

what he can comprehend, and he adds that from the earhest 
times uninstructed and superficial persons have been apt to 
misinterpret the Bible. It cannot therefore be a book easily- 
understood by every one. Luther himself complained that 
every sect appropriated the Scriptures and interpreted them 
according to its own views, so that finally the Bible fell into 
disrepute, even came to be called an heretical book, because 
all heresies had arisen from it and all heretics quoted it. 
(Sermon against turbulent spirits.) 

The Canon of the Bible 

Protestants assert that, since the Council of Trent, Roman Catho- 
lics have had to regard the so-called apocryphal books as being of equal 
importance with the other books of Holy Scripture. The Protestant 
Church holds that this is improper, because those books were not in- 
cluded among their sacred writings by the Jews nor by the primitive 
Christian Church. 

In reply we remark: 

{a) The books in question are not apocryphal, in the sense 
of spurious, although Luther called them so. These books, 
viz., Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 
Machabees, and portions of Esther and Daniel have come 
down to us only in Greek and not in Hebrew, but it is known 
that among the Jews the Greek text was the standard. It 
was the Greek text that the Apostles themselves used, and 
this text included these books. It is known, moreover, that 
in the third century Baruch was read in the synagogues, 
and in the Talmud Ecclesiasticus is mentioned with the 
Law and the Prophets. In the second century B.C. these 
books were universally regarded as canonical. 

(&) These books were considered sacred by the Christian 
Church from the very beginning, and no less importance was 
ascribed to them than to the earlier books of the Bible. An 
examination of the writings of the Fathers will show that they 
used and quoted these books no less than the other parts of the 
Bible; even so early an author as St. Clement of Rome made 
use of them; they occur in the most ancient translations, such 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 17 

as the Greek Septuagint, which dates from the third cen- 
tury B.C., as well as in the oldest Latin, Syriac, and Arme- 
nian versions. The Oriental sects, severed in the first cen- 
turies from the unity of the Church, regard these books as 
canonical. The Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of 
Carthage (397) included, like the Council of Trent, these 
books among the Holy Scriptures handed down by the 
Fathers, and in the year 405 Pope Innocent I officially con- 
firmed this canon. How then can any one assert that these 
books were put on a level with the rest of Holy Scripture 
only since the Council of Trent (1545-1563) ? Such a state- 
ment involves a perversion of facts. 

(c) No innovation was made at the Council of Trent nor 
were there any books added to the canon, but the Council 
proceeded with regard to the Bible as with other matters, 
and defined the primitive Christian truth plainly and in- 
telligibly as an article of faith. Not only was the Council 
entitled to do this, but it was imperative for men to know 
with certainty which books belong to Holy Scripture and 
therefore contain divinely revealed truth. 

(d) Luther, on the contrary, had no right to reject any 
books nor to designate them as apocryphal, i.e., books that 
have not the authority of Holy Scripture. It was not his 
privilege to decide regarding the authenticity of the Scrip- 
tures, and he might just as well have rejected every other 
book in the Bible. This is actually what Luther's followers 
are now doing. Protestant professors of theology, whose 
duty it is to train young men for the ministry, speak of the 
book of Genesis as a collection of myths and legends; they 
regard the prophets as eccentric, or even more or less de- 
mented enthusiasts, who thought that by stern denun- 
ciation and malediction they could best serve the terrible 
God of Israel. The books of Chronicles are assumed to 
have no claim to authenticity; St. Paul is regarded as a 
prejudiced Jewish theologian whose writings teem with 
contradictions, whilst St. John's teaching is said by them to 
border very closely on heresy. In short, the books of the 



i8 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Bible are treated as purely literary productions, inferior to 
many classical writings; they are said to be ingenious fabri- 
cations, etc., etc. The foregoing are only a few of the opinions 
expressed by modern Protestant critics who might as well 
apply to the whole Bible Luther's definition of the so-called 
apocryphal books, viz., ^^ books, once regarded as forming 
part of Holy Scripture, but now acknowledged to be full of 
legends and fables.'' 

The Catholic Church has a claim upon our gratitude not 
only, but upon that of every pious Protestant who still looks 
upon the Bible as the word of God and the source of divine 
truth. Amidst the storms and conflicts of centuries she 
alone has preserved the whole collection of sacred books, 
not tolerating the excision of a single book, chapter, or 
letter. 

The Vulgate 

Protestants assert that, since the Council of Trent, the Roman Catho- 
lic Church has assigned to the Latin translation of the Bible, known as the 
Vulgate, an importance equal to that of the original text, and in all her 
public utterances uses it to furnish conclusive evidence in support of her 
doctrines. So thoroughly is this the case that, where an error occurs in 
the Vulgate, it must not be corrected in accordance with the original. 
For instance, in Gen. iii, 15, the Hebrew text reads: " God said unto the 
serpent ... I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be- 
tween thy seed and her seed, he (or it) shall bruise thy head"; but the 
Vulgate runs : ^'she shall crush thy head." Protestants maintain that our 
theologians avail themselves of this mistranslation to prove that Mary, 
and not her divine Son, was to destroy the serpent. They recognize 
the great value of the Vulgate, but say that its numerous mistakes make 
it necessary for any one wishing to ascertain the truth to go back to the 
original. 

What have CathoHcs to say on this subject? 

(a) The name Vulgate means *' generally used." This 
translation was made by St. Jerome during the years 390- 
405. He took the greatest pains to secure its accuracy and 
to render the Hebrew and Greek text with the utmost 
fidelity into Latin. As time went on, this translation was 
universally adopted as peculiarly excellent. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 19 

(b) The Council of Trent declared it to be most expedient 
for Catholics to know which of all the Latin editions then 
in circulation was to be regarded as the one ofl&cially sanc- 
tioned. Therefore the Council decided that the ancient 
Vulgate edition, which had for many centuries been used in 
the Church, should be accepted as authentic and that no 
one under any pretext whatever should reject the same. 

(c) It is therefore incorrect to say that only since the 
Council of Trent has the Vulgate been recognized as the 
translation true to the meaning of Holy Scripture. 

(d) This translation is described as authentic. In legal 
language this term is applied to a document acknowledged 
to be genuine and trustworthy, so that when a translation 
is called authentic we mean that it conveys essentially the 
same meaning as the original. But, by calling the Vulgate 
an authentic translation, the Church had no intention of 
declaring it to be preferable to the Greek or Hebrew original 
texts of Holy Scripture, nor that it was free from all mis- 
takes, nor that it was forbidden to correct such mistakes in 
conformity with the original text. 

(e) The Council merely declared the Vulgate to be the 
best of all existing Latin versions of the Bible, and forbade 
another Latin translation to be quoted in public disserta- 
tions, sermons, or lectures in support of any doctrine affect- 
ing faith or morals. 

It was very necessary that such a definite rule should be 
laid down, since between the years 15 15 and 1580 there ap- 
peared no fewer than 181 Latin translations of the whole 
Bible or of individual books in it, these versions being more 
or less inaccurate. The Council said nothing as to the use 
of the Hebrew and Greek texts, for it was taken for granted 
as an incontestable fact that these texts were eminently 
authentic. Evidence in support of this statement is sup- 
plied by such men as Vega, Salmeron, and Pallavicini, who 
were present at the proceedings of the Council. Rugerius, 
secretary to the Apostolic See, writes as follows: "How 
could God-fearing men bear to assent, should any one de- 



20 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

dare that the Hebrew text of Holy Scripture was thence- 
forth discarded, — that text inspired by the Holy Ghost, 
written by the prophets, and quoted and expounded by 
Christ, — that text whence, as from a fountain, all other 
versions proceed, and from which all are descended?'' 

Within our own time Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical 
Providentissimus Deus (Nov., 1893), urged theologians to 
be zealous in studying the Bible in the languages in which 
it was originally written. 

(/) The Council of Trent did not pronoimce the Vulgate 
to be free from all errors, as is proved by the testimony of 
Pope Marcellus II, who assisted at the Council as Papal 
Legate, and also by the fact that both Sixtus V and Clement 
VIII caused several mistakes to be corrected. These mis- 
takes were verbal inaccuracies and did not affect matters 
of faith or morals. The Church does nor profess to teach 
languages, but, where truth necessary to salvation is con- 
cerned, she decides what is right or wrong. 

The idea that mistakes in the Vulgate may not be amended 
in accordance with the original text is quite erroneous. 
Verbal or grammatical errors may certainly be corrected, 
but it has never been shown that the Vulgate diverges from 
the original on points of importance and matters of faith. 
We may be sure that no purely human work has ever been 
more closely examined and sharply criticized than the Vul- 
gate translation. 

(g) Protestants fancy that they are pointing out an ob- 
vious mistranslation when they refer to the passage in 
Genesis where the promise of a Redeemer is made for the 
first time. They say that the Hebrew reads the masculine 
pronoun, whereas St. Jerome, by substituting the feminine, 
has given Catholic theologians the opportunity of referring 
the promise to the Virgin Mary. 

We acknowledge that the passage is expressed in the Vul- 
gate otherwise than in our printed Hebrew Bibles, but it is 
uncertain whether the reading of the Hebrew text used by 
St. Jerome was identical with that which we now possess. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 21 

Some scholars regard the identity as very doubtful, and we 
know that St. Jerome never intentionally mistranslated any 
part of the Bible. It is quite a mistake to suppose that this 
divergency from the Hebrew text has in any way affected 
or obscured the Catholic doctrine regarding our Redeemer 
and His blessed mother. Every student of theology is in- 
formed that there is a discrepancy between the Vulgate 
rendering and the original, and a statement to this effect 
will be found in every Catholic commentary on the Bible. 
Some Catholic scholars accept the masculine pronoun, but 
nevertheless find in the passage an allusion to the immacu- 
late mother of our Redeemer, whilst, on the other hand, 
Delitzsch and Keil, who are Protestants, admit that the 
Vulgate rendering is not incompatible with the meaning. 

What, we may ask, did St. Jerome intend to express by 
his translation? 

God said to the serpent: ^^I will put enmity between thee 
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, he 
(or it) shall crush thy head." The masculine pronoun refers 
grammatically to the seed of the woman, not to any definite 
person, but the Greek translators, whose version is accepted 
by Jews and Christians alike, made it refer, not to the seed 
generally but to one person, so that we have here a plain 
allusion to the promised Redeemer. No one ever found 
fault with this rendering, as it really expressed the meaning 
of God's words. 

But St. Jerome substituted a feminine pronoun, which 
must refer, not to the woman's seed but to the woman her- 
self; hence the passage means that God's grace destined 
woman alone to be the means of bringing the Redeemer 
into the world, just as she had brought sin into it. In the 
original we read that her seed, not the seed of man, should 
crush the serpent's head. Now apart from Jesus Christ no 
one can be termed the seed of a woman, in the Biblical sense. 
A non-Catholic commentator (Pember, Die ersten Zeitalter 
der Erde) writes: *^In this earliest prophecy we find it stated 
that our Lord was to be born of a virgin," and he continues: 



22 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

''If our translators had understood this correctly, they 
would not, in Is. vii, 14 and Matth. i, 23, have departed 
from the original by writing '^a virgin'' instead of ^^the 
virgin, shall conceive and bear a Son." 

Therefore Luther's translation of these prophecies of 
Isaias is in two places wrong in its wording and deeper 
significance, whereas St. Jerome's conveys a profound sug- 
gestion of the primitive Christian belief in the mysterious 
meaning of this promise, which contains the first allusion to 
a Redeemer. 

(h) The passage just discussed is the only one in which 
Protestants profess to discover an erroneous translation in 
the Vulgate, and otherwise they attach much importance 
to it. Teufiel, a renowned scholar {Romische Literature 3, 
433), calls it a masterpiece from the linguistic point of view, 
and with regard to its meaning and substance it is ad- 
mitted to be in perfect agreement with revealed truth. Can 
as much be said for other translations, especially Luther's? 

Luther^s Translation 

Is the Protestant who opens Luther's Bible sure of find- 
ing in it the genuine words of Holy Scripture? DoUinger 
{Kirche und Kirchen) says that it teems with mistransla- 
tions which seriously affect the meaning, and that in order 
to gain support for his own doctrines Luther in several in- 
stances intentionally altered the words of the Apostles, 
particularly in St. Paul's epistles. De Wette, a conscien- 
tious Protestant, affirms that in the prophetic books and 
elsewhere in the Old Testament, Luther's translation is so 
faulty as often to convey no intelligible meaning at all. 
What was the opinion of it formed by Zwingli, another 
leader of the Reformation? He writes: "Luther is an 
abominable twister and shameful distorter of God's word, 
... he scratched out of Holy Scripture all passages con- 
trary to his teaching" (de sacr. 3). For instance, in order 
to establish his doctrine regarding good works, he inserted 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 23 

the word ''alone" in Romans iii, 28, and a modem Prot- 
estant writer says that it is absolutely impossible to under- 
stand Luther's translation of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans 
or the first epistle to the Corinthians (Baumgarten, Predigi- 
problem J 1904? P- 24). 

Interpretation of the Bible 

With regard to expounding Holy Scripture, Protestants declare that 
while it is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that she alone in- 
terprets the Bible aright, no clear statement was made by the Council 
of Trent as to the particular person who is to give the interpretation. 
Cardinal Bellarmine comments that the Church, viz., the Pope with a 
Council, decides what is the true meaning of Holy Scripture, yet the 
same writer remarks in another passage that infallibility is the preroga- 
tive of the Pope alone, not of a Council nor of an assembly of bishops. 
Hence in the Roman Catholic Church, councils and bishops have fre- 
quently been condemned, in proof that power to interpret Scripture 
infallibly is not connected with their office, so that all ultimately depends 
upon the Pope's decision. Protestants profess to know that when the 
Popes have given an interpretation, it often involved such a reprehensi- 
ble abuse of the Bible that even a CathoHc with any regard for the 
truth is unable to deny this fact. 

Let US begin with the last assertion, and say at once that 
in our opinion it is extremely reprehensible to make an ac- 
cusation in support of which no evidence can be adduced. 
It is impossible to point out any actual instance of abuse of 
Holy Scripture by any Pope engaged in the interpretation 
of its meaning. Had such a thing ever occurred, Catholics 
should certainly have heard of it. Let us now consider the 
assertions that the Council of Trent did not declare clearly 
who in the Church possesses the power to decide what is 
the correct interpretation of Scripture, and that the Pope 
alone exercises the right of interpretation, often in an un- 
justifiable manner. Protestants imagine that the Popes 
may expound the Bible just as they please, and that a Cath- 
olic is bound to accept their views as infallible. As a matter 
of fact, there was no need for the Council to discuss the ques- 
tion who in the Church possesses the power to correctly 
interpret Holy Scripture on points afifecting doctrines of 



24 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

faith and morals, and such were the points under considera- 
tion. It could well presume it as generally known that there 
was a teaching office in the Catholic Church, and that every 
one knew who held it. There is an explicit statement in the 
Roman Catechism, compiled upon the conclusion of the 
Coimcil at the command of Pope Pius V.: '^The Son of God 
appointed some to be apostles, others to be prophets, and 
others to be shepherds and teachers, who were to make 
known the word of life, that we might be no more like chil- 
dren tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind 
of doctrine (Eph. iv, 14), but might be built upon the firm 
foundation of the faith into an habitation of God in the 
Spirit (Eph. ii, 22). In order however that no one might 
regard the word of God as merely the doctrine of men, but 
should receive it as the word of Christ (for this it indeed is), 
our Redeemer imparted so great a dignity to the teaching 
ofl&ce of the Church, that He said: ^He that heareth you, 
heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me' (Luke 
X, 16). These words applied not only to the persons to whom 
our Saviour addressed them, but to all their legitimate suc- 
cessors in this teaching ofi&ce, and He promised to remain 
with them all days, even to the consummation of the world 
(Matth. xxviii, 20)." (Introduction to the Roman Cate- 
chism, §§3 and 4.) Thus the legitimate successors of the 
Apostles exercise the authority to teach as long as they are 
in communion with the supreme Head of the Church. 

An individual bishop, a council not in communion with the 
Holy See, even a Pope not speaking officially as the chief 
teacher of the Church, they all may err. But the teaching 
office of the Church has at all times existed, it has main- 
tained the truth of God against erring bishops such as 
Cyprian and Fenelon, against councils not in harmony with 
the ancient teaching of the Church, such as the Council 
of Bale in 143 1, and even against a Pope (Honorius) who 
transgressed the true ecclesiastical law by his imprudent 
treatment of heretics, although he did not err in a point of 
faith. It is a remarkable fact that the adherents of each 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 25 

heresy acknowledge the CathoUc Church to have acted 
wisely in defending the truth against heretics of an earlier 
age, although refusing to admit the justice of her attitude 
towards themselves. Yet the Church has dealt with Luther's 
doctrines precisely as she dealt with those of Arius and Nes- 
torius. She examines the teachings, whether they be of 
God, and denounces error as error, because she exists and 
has received authority from God for that very purpose. In 
a civil court of justice the judge's duty is to define and apply 
the law. The code of laws cannot define and apply itself. 
An individual may read and study the law, but he must not 
decide his own case in accordance with his individual concep- 
tion of it. It is obvious to every one that it cannot be other- 
wise, and we are all aware that certain men are appointed 
to be judges, that they sit in courts and give sentence 
independently of the opinions of contestants. Furthermore, 
there is a supreme court from whose decision no further 
appeal can be made, and every subject of the state has 
to submit to this court even if he previously believed it 
permissible to differ with the judge of the lower court. Yet 
Protestants refuse to recognize a similar arrangement in 
the Church of God,, the greatest institution on earth, and 
the one possessing the loftiest aims. They maintain that 
there should be no supreme teaching authority, one able to 
decide disputed points by irrevocable decrees. Had it not 
existed, what would in course of time have become of the 
truths taught by Christ? All of them would have perished, 
or would at least have lost every claim to recognition. It 
is absolutely necessary that there be a teaching authority 
in the Church, not simply regarded as competent to decide 
every question concerning the interpretation of the word of 
God but really so empowered by Him to speak with infalli- 
ble accuracy and continually under His guidance. When 
this teaching authority or its highest representative, the 
Holy Father, decides what interpretation is to be given to 
Holy Scripture, it does not claim to be superior to the word 
of God, no more than the judge claims to be superior to the 



26 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

law, but it is above the private opinions of the faithful, no 
matter how pious and learned they may be, and it is in a 
position to detect and condemn any error that might other- 
wise find acceptance. 

When we reflect that the organic Church dates from Pen- 
tecost, and that portions of the Bible were not written until 
a hundred years later, is it an exaggeration to assert — in- 
deed, were it not rank fallacy to disown the fact — that the 
Church of the New Law antedates the authorship of the 
New Testament? And this being accepted, is she not the 
"author and mother," and therefore (aside from divine ap- 
pointment) the interpreter, of the work of her own children? 

Dr. Philip M. Rhinelander, Bishop of the Episcopal Dio- 
cese of Pennsylvania, said exactly this in a lecture delivered 
July 8, 1911, in Cambridge, Mass., and quoted by the Boston 
Republic. "It is the Roman Catholic view and treatment 
of the Bible that has been vindicated at every point by the 
often excessively anti-Catholic examination of the student''; 
and because of this "leading critics have finally come to the 
opinion that since the Bible comes from the Church, it must 
be restored to the Church — for proper interpretation, of 
course — in order that it may be understood." 

In order to prove the Catholic Church incapable of interpreting Holy 
Scripture, Protestants say: "If the Council of Trent made the inter- 
pretation of the Bible dependent upon the agreement of the Fathers, 
it is equivalent to an admission that the Fathers of the Church are 
not always in accord.'' They refer in this connection to Professor 
Mohler's book on the dogmatic differences between Catholics and 
Protestants. 

A reader who has not Mohler's book nor the decisions of 
the Council at hand, might suppose the Council of Trent to 
have laid it down as an absolute rule that Holy Scripture 
must be interpreted in accordance with the unanimous 
teaching of the Fathers, and that Mohler has shown that 
they are never unanimous. If this were true, the Catholic 
would indeed be in a bad fix. But if we examine the two 
books in question we find that the Council of Trent forbids 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 27 

any one, relying upon his own knowledge, to interpret Holy 
Scripture on any point of faith or morals in accordance with 
his own views, as opposed to the meaning assigned and ac- 
cepted by our holy mother, the Church, or opposed to the 
imanimous testimony of the Fathers. It is quite plain that 
here, too, the Council is referring only to interpretations of 
Holy Scripture which afifect the faith and morals of Chris- 
tians, and Mohler himself states that all Fathers of the 
Church agree on these points, and could not do otherwise. 
He writes: ^' Apart from the interpretation of a few classical 
passages, it would be difficult to say on what subjects they 
are all agreed, except that they all derive from the Bible 
the same doctrines on faith and morals, although each does 
so after his own fashion, and thus some have produced works 
that are for all time models of what exegetics should be, 
others are men of merely average capacity, whilst in the case 
of others, their good will and their love of our Saviour con- 
stitute their only claim to our veneration." In another pas- 
sage Mohler foresees that in the future similar comment 
will apply to Catholic writers on Holy Scripture, "but, like 
the Fathers of the Church, they will all discover in the Bible 
the same dogmas and the same moral teaching^' (2d ed., § 36). 
The Fathers are absolutely unanimous as to the Catholic 
faith. If we studied all the hundreds of volumes in the 
Patrology we should find that they all held the same belief 
and bore testimony to it. All declare Jesus Christ to be 
really the Son of God, true God and true Man. Mary is 
His virgin Mother, the Mother of God, and consequently 
entitled to our veneration. Jesus founded a visible Church, 
gave to her a visible Head, made her the infallible teacher 
of revealed truth, and required all who would be saved to 
belong to her body. These are articles of faith upon which 
absolute unanimity prevails among the Fathers, a unanimity 
so striking that it alone has caused many non-Catholics to 
return to the true faith. The fact that the patristic writers 
do not agree on other, minor, points shows that Catholics 
are at liberty to examine and interpret Holy Scripture with- 



28 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

out restriction, always provided they do not question the 
teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals, and 
even here the faith of the Church and the tradition of the 
Fathers are trustworthy guides rather than impediments. 
Every one needs some guide in reading the Bible, for should 
he discover in it another faith than that taught by Christ, 
preached by the Apostles, held by the Fathers and defended 
by the blood of martyrs, it would not be the true faith by 
which alone he can be saved. 

{i) It is absolutely false and misleading to say: 

"We know that the Son of God nowhere bestowed on any body of 
men or any individual sole authority to interpret the Bible." 

We know that the Church must have power to teach and that 
from the time of the Apostles this teaching office has existed 
in the Catholic Church, having been instituted by Christ 
who made her a stronghold of truth, resting on St. Peter as 
on an immovable rock. Moreover, He gave the Apostles 
authority to teach, and the power to interpret the Bible is 
included in this authority. We are convinced that if the 
Church had not possessed this teaching office divine truth 
and Holy Scripture would long ago have perished, since 
Satan himself may be nimibered amongst the exponents of 
the Bible (Matth. iv, 6). 

^^We must confess that there are scores of preachers now 
in Protestant pulpits conceitedly dealing out destructive 
criticism and cunningly undermining the faith of the people, 
who would be promptly silenced by Catholic authority. 
How strange the times and how humiliating to our reformed 
profession!" (Rev. E. P. Marvin, in the Episcopal Re- 
corder,) 

Individual Interpretation 

Protestants attempt to prove from the Bible the doctrine that every 
Christian ought to find out his faith by searching the Scriptures. They 
maintain that Christ said to every one, "Search the scriptures" Qohn 
V, 39), and that the Apostles would have approved had any man, after 
hearing them preach, examined the Old Testament to see if their doctrine 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 29 

were in accordance with it (Acts xvii, 11). They say, further, that the 
words of Christ and His Apostles and prophets give Hght unto the 
simple and are "Hving and effectual, . . . reaching unto the division 
of the soul and the spirit'' (Hebr. iv, 12). 

With regard to the words: *^ Search the scriptures," a 
Protestant, the learned Seldon, remarked that they have 
had a disastrous efiEect upon the world. If Christ addressed 
them to His disciples, did He mean that every man, woman, 
and child ought to read and interpret the Bible? If we ex- 
amine the passage in which they occur, and consider their 
context in St. John's Gospel, we shall see that our Lord did 
not address these words even to His disciples, far less to all 
men universally as some Protestants allege, but only to the 
unbelieving Pharisees. It was to them that He said: ^^You 
search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life 
everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of 
me; and you will not come to me, that you may have life." 
Our Lord's meaning was that the Pharisees searched the 
Scriptures, but had formed from them an idea of the Messias 
totally unlike the picture of the real Redeemer as fore- 
shadowed in the Old Testament. Being misled by this mis- 
taken idea, derived erroneously from the Scriptures, they 
failed to recognize Christ as their Redeemer, and did not 
attain to everlasting life through Him, because they assimied 
to have found it in the Holy Scriptures alone. Unhappily 
there are many people at the present day who make the 
same mistake. 

Our Lord recognizes the importance of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures which give testimony of Him, but He 
points out that a misunderstanding of them leads neither 
to Him nor to life eternal. In uttering these words 
He certainly had no intention of bidding every one read 
the Bible. 

Such is the interpretation given by the best commentators, 
both Catholic (see Schanz, Joh.'Evangelium, p. 257) and 
Protestant (see Stage, Neues Testament ad loc). It is im- 
portant to notice the concluding words of our Lord's ad- 



30 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

dress to the Pharisees: ^^ Think not that I will accuse you 
to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in 
whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would 
perhaps believe me also, for he wrote of me. But if you do 
not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?'' 
The Church that He foimded, and in which He, the Son of 
God, hves on even to the end of the world, might well use 
the same language towards her antagonists. She might say: 
'^ Think not that I will accuse you to the Father — your 
accusers are the prophets and apostles. If you believed 
them you would believe me also, for they wrote of me. But 
if you do not believe their writings how will you beheve 
me?'' 

A further mistaken assertion is that the Apostles would 
have commended their hearers, had they referred to the 
Scriptures in order to test the accuracy of their doctrine. 
We read in Acts xvii, ii, that certain Jews in Berea received 
the w^ord with all eagerness, daily searching the Scriptures 
whether these things were so. It does not, however, follow 
that Christian believers were bound to do the same. St. 
Paul was preaching to unbelievers, quoting the prophecies 
relating to a Redeemer, and the Jews referred to the Old 
Testament to verify his quotations. It was not through 
searching the Scriptures, but by Ustening to the Apostles' 
words that they received the faith. When St. Paul was ad- 
dressing Christian congregations, and not Jews, he never 
suggested their examining written documents to see if he 
was teaching true doctrines, but he confirmed the churches, 
commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles, 
and delivered to them the decrees that were decreed by the 
Apostles and ancients at Jerusalem; and the churches were 
confirmed in faith (Acts xv, 41; xvi, 4, 5). 

As to the words of Holy Scripture being a light to enlighten 
the simple-minded, the Catholic Church is far from denying 
that this is the case, but neither in Hebr. iv, 12 nor in other 
similar passages does she discover any recommendation of 
indiscriminate Bible reading. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 31 

Some Protestants are willing to admit that there have been misin- 
terpretations of Holy Scripture, but they believe that God has raised 
up men in every age capable of giving the correct interpretation, men 
like Martin Luther, Wesley, etc. 

If Protestants admit that there are many erroneous in- 
terpretations of Holy Scripture, how are they to know which 
is the correct interpretation? Do they not realize that it is 
impossible for more than one interpretation of a given pas- 
sage to be true and correct? 

At the Last Supper our Saviour said: '^This is my Body." 
After uttering these words, what He held in His hands was 
either truly His Body or it was not; and if it was not, Christ 
did not mean what He said. Only one of these alternatives 
can be true, and in reading the Gospel you are perhaps un- 
decided as to which is correct. You are liable to error, and 
many of your predecessors, men perhaps even more earnest 
than you in the quest of truth, have erred, in spite of possess- 
ing the Bible. 

Your Protestant friends bid you search the Scriptures, 
and tell you they alone can reveal the right path to follow, 
but in your own heart you feel that you are in a state of 
danger and uncertainty, and likely to go astray; in fact 
these friends add to your difl&culties by their admission that 
it is possible to err in the interpretation of the Bible. In 
your perplexity you feel the need of authoritative interpre- 
tation. But where are you to go for the truth? Must you 
have recourse to exponents such as Martin Luther, Wycliffe, 
or Wesley? No, these are individuals quite as liable to make 
mistakes as you yourself, and it is admitted even by their 
disciples that they have often blundered. If you, for 
instance, asked Harnack or any other modern Protestant 
scholar for his opinion of Luther's interpretation of the 
Bible, you would not be edified by their reply. You would 
be still more amazed to learn of all the mistakes and contra- 
dictions into which Luther fell. 

Nevertheless let us see what Luther holds as to what our 
Lord did at the Last Supper. In his earlier works he says 



32 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

quite bluntly that you must not believe the bread to have 
been changed into the Body of Christ, but later he taught 
a very extraordinary doctrine, viz., that Christ did not 
actually change the bread but gave to the Apostles His Body 
in and with the bread. Later still, Luther found a way out 
and pointed out that Christ as man is everywhere pre'sent, 
therefore He is present in the Sacrament, and hence He can 
say: "This is my Body." 

If none of these interpretations satisfy you, you 
may be referred for others to the writings of other 
Protestant commentators, but whichever you choose to 
adopt, it is the explanation given by some human in- 
dividual and not simply the statement found in Holy 
Scripture. Where then can you find certainty regarding 
the word of God? 

Since it is imiversally granted that individuals may err 
in interpreting the Bible, must not our Lord necessarily 
have entrusted His Word to some infallible authority, able 
to recognize, maintain, and teach with certainty the true 
meaning? Is it not in fact an inestimable benefit that He 
did so? Considered merely from the human point of view, 
the Catholic Church, with her uninterrupted tradition and 
her imchanging deposit of faith, is far more trustworthy an 
exponent than Luther or any other individual commentator, 
since they explain the Bible in accordance with their own 
opinions. We Catholics should indeed be both blind and 
ungrateful, if we failed to appreciate the great advantage 
that we enjoy. 

The Right to Read the Bible 

Protestants are fond of declaring that since the thirteenth century 
the Popes have discouraged and forbidden the study of Holy Scripture, 
and they mention Pius IV, Sixtus V, Urban VIII, and Pius VII espe- 
cially as having done so. The papacy, we are told, wishes Christians 
not to read the Bible and to have as Httle access to it as possible, so that 
they may retain the belief in papal doctrines. Protestants say they owe 
much gratitude to God, and should implore Him to preserve to them and 
their posterity that greatest of privileges, the right to read the Bible. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 33 

{a) Is it recorded an)rwhere in Holy Scripture that the 
right to read the Bible is the greatest privilege enjoyed by 
Christians? ^^ Master," said the rich young man, ''what 
must I do to be saved?'' Was he told to read the Bible? 
"Which is the first commandment in the law?" asked the 
Pharisees. Was the reply "Read the Bible"? In the Ser- 
mon on the Mount our Lord taught His disciples the new 
law; did He say, "Blessed are those that read the Bible"? 
When He founded His Church did He say that the Scrip- 
tures were the rock? Did He charge the Apostles to go 
forth into all the world and distribute Bibles? Is there in 
the Bible itself a word as to the necessity of reading it? 
No, Holy Scripture does not say anything at all on the 
subject. 

(b) For centuries, in fact ever since the time of Luther, 
Protestants have stuck to the zealously promulgated fable 
that the Popes are sworn enemies of the Bible, and have for- 
bidden Catholics under heavy penalties to read it. This 
accusation is quite groundless; no Pope has ever feared the 
Bible nor forbidden its use in the Catholic Church. It is 
quite clear from historical records that in the primitive 
Church people were encouraged to read the Scriptures; even 
Protestants do not question this fact. But, some one may 
ask, why did not the early Christians, our forefathers in the 
faith, or the learned doctors filled with the Holy Spirit, or 
the heroic martyrs who died rather than surrender their 
holy books to their persecutors, find in the Bible some of 
the things that Luther discovered? Because they possessed 
greater humility, and did not presume to set themselves up 
as judges of the word of God, but recognized the Church 
founded by Christ as alone competent to interpret the Scrip- 
tures. They were of the same mind as St. Augustine who 
said, "I should not believe the Gospel, unless the authority 
of the Catholic Church impelled me to do so" {Ep. fund., 
c. 5), and, "Let any one, who fears to be misled by the ob- 
scurity of Holy Scripture, have recourse to the Church, 
which is pointed out to him in the Scriptures" {c. Crescon. 



34 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Donat.j I, 33, 39). No one ever knew and loved the Bible 
better than St. Jerome who made it universally accessible 
by his translations and elucidations, and yet he writes (ad 
Paulin., c. 7) that "every garrulous woman, every puerile 
old man, every busybody, recklessly meddle with Holy 
Scripture and presume to teach others before they them- 
selves have learnt." He goes on to complain that some 
scholars completely misinterpreted Holy Scripture accord- 
ing to their own ideas, adding that it is exceedingly wrong 
to distort the sense when it is at variance with one's own 
opinions. This goes to show that already in St. Jerome's 
time individuals were not allowed to read and interpret the 
Bible as they chose, although Protestants claim this to have 
been the case, so that they may represent the subsequent 
action of the Holy See as an encroachment upon the rights 
of Christians. 

(c) Why did the Popes forbid certain translations of the 
Bible to be circulated and read? In order to protect the 
Bible against falsification and Christianity against error, 
Pius IV laid down the following rule: "Since experience has 
shown that, if the use of the Holy Bible in the vernacular 
be allowed to every one without distinction, there results 
therefrom, in consequence of the rashness of men, more 
harm than advantage, let all submit in this matter to the 
judgment of their spiritual superiors, who have the right 
to allow the reading of the sacred scriptures, translated into 
the vernacular by Catholics, to such as will derive from this 
reading no injury of any kind, but an increase of faith and 
piety." 

Whenever the Catholic Church deems it expedient to 
assign certain limitations to the reading of translations of 
the Bible, she fears, not for herself, but for ignorant readers. 
If the Popes had really wished to conceal the truth from 
Christians in general, they would have done better to forbid 
scholars to read the Bible in Hebrew or Greek, since the 
truth would be more certainly discovered in the original 
text than in a translation. But no restrictions have ever 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 35 

been imposed upon reading the Bible in the original lan- 
guages. 

In course of time, the free practice of Bible reading became 
a token of rebellion against the ancient Church, especially 
among the Waldensians and Albigenses. Men began to find 
all sorts of doctrines in the Bible. The Anabaptists, for in- 
stance, discovered that every imaginable form of licentious- 
ness could be justified from the Bible. Such grave disorders 
compelled the Catholic Church to take stringent measures 
for their repression. 

The Bible in the Middle Ages 

It is a common tale, accepted by most Protestants as incon- 
testably true, that in the Catholic Church the Bible was de- 
spised and neglected until Luther restored it to honour. 

To this fairy tale the Living Church (Episcopal) editorially 
replies: ^^ Luther did not discover the Word of God to the 
Germans, despite the Protestant delusion to that effect. 
Those who have cared to learn have long ago known that 
many editions of the Bible were published in Germany in 
German and Latin before Luther's time." 

"Before the time of Luther the Bible had already been 
translated and printed in both High and Low Dutch'' (Men- 
zel's History of Germany), 

As a matter of fact. Catholics have never neglected the 
Bible nor do they disregard it at the present day. No one 
who has ever read a mediaeval book or sermon can possibly 
imagine that in the Middle Ages people despised and ig- 
nored the word x)f God. As long ago as 1861, a writer in a 
Protestant newspaper said: "In the darkness of the Middle 
Ages, when a Bible cost as many pounds as it now costs 
pence, unfamiliarity with the Bible and inability to answer 
religious questions were not as widespread as they are 
among the present generation." During the Middle Ages 
the Bible was translated into many languages and was widely 
circulated. In 1294 a complete French translation was made, 
but single books of Holy Scripture had long before this date 



36 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

been translated and circulated among the faithful. Before the 
time of Luther there were in existence two hundred transla- 
tions into the vernacular, and between the invention of print- 
ing and Luther's first appearance at least twenty translations 
of the Bible into German were printed. The fact that the 
Reformation was contemporaneous with the invention of the 
printing press has given Protestants the opportunity to 
claim the credit for the increased output of Bibles in the ver- 
nacular, which was really the immediate and direct result of 
the invention of printing. Between 147 1 and 1500 seventeen 
editions of an Italian Bible appeared, and in 1538 there was 
another revised edition of it, besides many others. In every 
case these Bibles were sanctioned by the Church, which per- 
mitted them to be printed, published, and circulated. Surely 
no one can suppose that there would have been so many edi- 
tions had people been forbidden to read the Bible! 

Even Adolf Harnack admits to be false the assertion *^ that 
Catholicism forbids laymen to read the Bible.'' Emphati- 
cally he adds (and in italics): ^^On the contrary, Catholicism 
has at all times undoubtedly regarded Bible reading as use- 
ful and salutary for every man in the abstract, and is still of 
the same opinion" {Bible Reading in the Early Church), 

To-day, when there are ^^ nearly seven hundred sects in 
England alone, each of them proving a whole system of 
theology and morals from the Bible" {London Times, May 
13, 1884), and when ^Hhe Bible and the Bible alone" is the 
rule of faith of many earnest religious people, is it not em- 
barrassing for them to remember that for many centuries 
this salvation-through-the-Bible was generally impossible? 
Impossible because, although as we have seen, the people 
were encouraged to read them, it cannot be expected that 
every home was provided with copies of the sacred writings 
in an age when trained and patient hands were obliged to 
transcribe the inspired words to parchment rolls. 

How do matters stand at the present day? Do Protestants 
really believe Catholics to be unaware that the Bible contains 
the word of God, or to be deprived of any truth recorded in 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 37 

Holy Scripture? Every Catholic child is required to learn 
the catechism and Bible history, both derived from and 
based uppn Holy Scripture. The Council of Trent advo- 
cated the study "and interpretation of the Scriptures, and the 
Popes recommend accurate translations. It was with the full 
consent of Leo XIII that in 1900 a society was established 
in Rome for the purpose of circulating among the people 
a correct translation of the New Testament at a very low 
price. On November 29, 1903, Pius X addressed words of 
commendation and encouragement to the members of this 
society, laying stress upon the fact that the reading of the 
Gospel was a safeguard of the faith. 

In the Catholic Church Holy Scripture has at all times 
been treated with reverence as the word of God. Saints 
knelt when they read it, and every Catholic can study it 
without let or hindrance, provided he does so for the purpose 
of edification and with a pure intention. He must, however, 
assure himself that the book before him is really the word of 
God, correctly translated and expounded as it has been in 
the Church from the time of the Apostles onward. This 
assurance is supplied by the approbation of a Catholic 
bishop, which is the only condition the Popes now insist upon. 

By putting wise and necessary restrictions upon the read- 
ing of translations of the Bible, the Church shows her re- 
spect not only but even her jealous care for Holy Scripture. 
A Catholic who does not believe Holy Scripture to have 
been revealed by God, who does not believe that its teaching, 
rightly understood and expounded, will bring him to God, 
errs on a point of faith, and, whether he be priest or layman, 
if he persists in this error or attempts to propagate it, he will 
be excluded from the Church. 

Protestant Opinion of the Bible 

What, however, do many Protestants of the present day 
think of the Bible? Father Ignatius, an Anglican, expressed 
the most profound admiration for Leo XIII's encyclical on 
the Study of Holy Scripture, and described as a magnificent 



38 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

act of faith the Pope's assertion that the Bible, being inspired 
by the Holy Spirit, was free from all error. He pointed out 
also that Protestants of every variety depreciate the Bible 
and do their best to undermine all faith in it, whilst the 
Roman Pontiff comes forward as its champion, offering 
consolation to those who are oppressed with sorrow at the 
conflicting doctrines taught in the world (Catholic Times, 
1893). 

{d) Protestants appear to take peculiar offence at the vigorous oppo- 
sition of the Popes to the so-called Bible Societies. 

It should be borne in mind that a Bible Society is not the 
same thing as the Bible, nor did Christ say to the members 
of such societies, "He that despiseth you, despiseth me." 
One may disapprove of abuses in the butter trade and yet 
appreciate good butter; he will be anxious to protect it 
against adulteration. In the same way, one may have the 
greatest admiration for the Bible and yet oppose certain 
actions of Bible Societies. A well-known Protestant (Pro- 
fessor Leo) remarks on this subject: "The Pope calls the 
Bible Society a pest, and he is right. If I were in his place, 
I should do the same, for the Bible is but the sheep's skin 
under which the wolf is concealed." Other prominent Prot- 
estants have spoken in similar terms of these societies (cf. 
Perrone, de loc, theoL, p. 2, c. 4, § 277). 

The first Bible Society was founded in London in 1804, its 
aim being to exercise an apostolate by circulating the Bible 
amongst pagans, Mahommedans, and Christians. It is ob- 
viously impossible to spread the Gospel amongst the heathen 
by merely distributing Bibles (Rom. x, 14), and it was surely 
the duty of the Popes to emphatically forbid utterly unau- 
thorized men to carry on amongst Catholics a proselytizing 
for Protestantism under the pretext of giving them the Gos- 
pel, which in truth they possessed from the earliest age. 
Moreover, the emissaries of these Bible Societies publicly 
declared that they aimed at overthrowing the authority of 
the Popes and at converting Catholics, and they distributed 



HOLY SCRIPTURE 39 

not only Protestant Bibles, but tracts full of vehement at- 
tacks upon Catholic faith, and containing misrepresentations 
and calumnies of the Catholic Church. 

Oral Traditions 

Protestants maintain that Roman Catholics are bound to accept, as 
on a level with Holy Scripture, all sorts of oral traditions said to date from 
the time of the Apostles and to have been preserved in all their purity. 
Most of these traditions are rejected by Protestants, as not only mani- 
festly opposed to the word of God but also because for the most part 
they originated some centuries after the death of the Apostles. 

The two objections against oral traditions require proof 
before they can be given any weight. The Council of Trent 
declares explicitly that no traditions are to be accepted, be- 
lieved, and respected except such as the Apostles received 
from the lips of Christ and such as were handed down by the 
Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These 
traditions alone must not be rejected. 

Catholic traditions regarding the Mass, Purgatory, papal 
supremacy, etc., are not opposed to Holy Scripture. On the 
contrary, they are all based upon the word of God and by no 
means repugnant to it. If non-Catholics tell us that they 
can find no allusion to these things in their Bibles, this proves 
nothing except that Holy Scripture by itself does not teach 
all doctrines clearly and beyond misinterpretation. If two 
people assign different interpretations to a legal enactment, 
they must have recourse to some higher authority to settle 
the matter. We Catholics have such a supreme authority to 
decide the true meaning of Holy Scripture and of oral tradi- 
tion, viz., our Holy Church, in which Christ lives on in 
accordance with His promise: ^^I am with you all days, even 
to the consunmiation of the world." He cannot fail to guide 
her into all truth. 

It is certain that our divine Lord Himself employed no 
other means but oral instruction of making His doctrines 
known. He bequeathed not a single word in writing to His 
followers, and yet He entrusted all His words and teaching 



40 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

to His Church to be her inalienable possession. It is certain, 
moreover, that He charged the Apostles to teach, not to write 
(Matth. xxviii, i8; Luke x, i6). It is certain, too, that the 
Holy Scriptures are not so ancient as the oral tradition of 
the truth, and that the Apostles, even when some special 
purpose caused them to write, nevertheless regarded oral in- 
struction as the means designed by God for the propagation 
of the faith, and they impressed upon their converts the im- 
portance of adhering to the doctrines they had been taught 
orally. Both in ancient and modern times, heathen nations 
have received the faith and have clung to it loyally, although 
it reached them solely through the channel of Apostolic tra- 
dition. Finally, it is certain that the Fathers of the Church 
always appealed to the tradition, handed down pure and un- 
defiled from one generation to another, just as it was given 
in the first instance, by Christ to the Apostles, and they ap- 
pealed to it successfully against heretical teachers. Catholics 
have not allowed human ordinances to make their way into 
the deposit of faith received from the Apostles; their living 
and universal consciousness of the faith would have rendered 
this impossible, and Christ's promise of guidance by the 
Holy Ghost would have failed. Those, however, who rank 
human wisdom higher than the word of God, those who have 
cut themselves off from the unity of the old faith, are the 
Protestants. The Holy Scriptures with their inexhaustible 
wealth of doctrine belong to the Catholic Church. She was 
entrusted with them and she has been true to the trust. Ever 
since Protestants claimed the Bible as their own, it has by 
them been misinterpreted, mutilated, and dishonoured. We 
Catholics are the heirs of the Apostles who, like their divine 
Master, taught their followers to hold fast to the truth, warning 
them at the same time against false prophets, against new- 
fangled doctrines, and schism. Hence we, the same as our 
forefathers, adhere to the word of God, which will be handed 
down in our Church, in Holy Scripture, and in the ancient tra- 
ditions to the end of the world, for our Lord said: ^'Heaven 
and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." 



III. THE CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL 
AUTHORITY 

The Protestant Assertion. According to Catholic doctrine the only true 
Church, the Church in which alone salvation can be found, is the visible 
comnumity of Christians under the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Every 
member of this Church must make outward profession of the faith that 
she teaches and conform to her ordinances. 

The Catholic Reply, We read in Holy Scripture that Christ 
founded a visible Church and commanded men to obey her 
(John XX, 21 ; Matth. xxviii, i8, etc.). Moreover, we read 
that He Himself appointed one man to be the visible head of 
this one visible Church (Matth. xvi, i8, etc.; John xxi, 15- 
17). Hence it is true that we believe the Church of Christ 
to be the visible community of all the faithful, who recognize 
the Roman Pontiff as the supreme head of the Church ap- 
pointed by Christ. 

The Church does not teach that a merely outward member- 
ship of her body is sufficient to ensure salvation. A merely 
outward member of the Church would resemble a lifeless 
limb on a living body. Nor does she say that all who are not 
outwardly her members are therefore excluded from salvation. 
Many are in error through no fault of their own; they serve 
God to the best of their knowledge and inwardly belong to 
His Church; hence they can be saved. 

The Protestant Assertion, The true Church consists of the invisible 
communion existing between all who beheve in Christ, no matter what 
outward form of rehgion they profess. 

The Catholic Reply. The theory of an invisible Church is 
opposed to the plain statements made by Christ and the 
Apostles. In Holy Scripture the Church is always said to be 
visible as well as invisible. St. Paul, for instance, frequently 



42 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

speaks of the Church as the body of Christ. Just as Christ 
performed His work of redemption in a visible body, so will He 
continue the work in a visible Church to the end of the world. 
It is not a matter of indifference which religion a man pro- 
fesses, for not every religious body supplies to its members 
the means of receiving the true faith and of living a life 
pleasing to God. 

Protestants maintain that they possess the Gospel of Jesus Christ in 
all its purity and the sacraments as He instituted them. 

The Catholic Reply, It is impossible that the various exist- 
ing religious bodies that call themselves Churches should all 
equally proceed from Christ and lead men to Him. Protes- 
tants seem to describe their Church, which they allege to be 
that which Christ founded, sometimes as visible, sometimes 
as invisible; surely there is some discrepancy here! It is, 
moreover, false to assert that in the Protestant Churches the 
Gospel of Christ is preached in all its purity, and the sacra- 
ments administered according to our Lord's institution. The 
name of "Protestant" is given to all those who have cut 
themselves off from the one holy Church of Christ, although 
they may agree on no other point except their severance from 
the Catholic Church. If we rely upon the statements made 
by Protestants, we may venture to say that never has the 
Gospel of our divine Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ been so 
corrupted, never have the sacraments been so neglected and 
reduced in number, as by the various Protestant sects at the 
present time. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, can 
adduce historical evidence to prove that she alone has faith- 
fully preserved the Gospel of Christ in its integrity as she 
received it, and that she has always administered the seven 
sacraments according to our Saviour's desires. 

Authority of the Pope 

Protestants assert that Cathohcs give the following account of the au- 
thority of the Church: Supreme and unlimited power over the Church 
is in the hands of the Pope, the successor of Peter the Apostle and Vicar 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 43 

of Christ. But the Pope possesses authority also over the whole worid, 
and every human being is subject to this authority and unless he ac- 
knowledges it he need not hope for salvation. Hence in matters of faith 
and morals the Pope is infallible, and what he teaches and orders must 
be believed and carried out with absolute fidelity. He has power to re- 
lease men from their vows, to appoint and depose kings, to distribute 
the coimtries of the world according to his wishes, and to coerce imbehev- 
ers and heretics by the agency of secular governments or even to order 
their extirpation. 

The Catholic Reply. We believe and confess that Christ 
Himself (Matth. xvi, 18) conferred upon St. Peter the privi- 
lege of acting as His representative in governing His Church, 
and as this ofl&ce is essential to the continued existence of the 
Church the privilege must pass on to the legitimate succes- 
sors of St. Peter. 

Further, we believe that the supreme teaching office in 
the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth (i Tim. iii, 
15) must be infalUble (Luke xxii, 31, etc.). 

We are only then absolutely bound to believe and do what 
the Pope teaches and orders when he acts in his capacity 
as the chief shepherd and teacher of the Church and gives 
a decision, applicable to the whole Church, on a matter 
which is imperatively necessary for us to believe or obey 
in order to be saved. 

On the other hand, the Pope claims not a positive privi- 
lege of temporal power, far less a dominion over the entire 
world. Christ said: ^^ Preach the Gospel to every creature; 
he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he 
that believeth not, shall be condemned" (Mark xvi, 15, 16). 
Hence our Lord desires all who wish to be saved to submit 
to the teaching authority of the Church, but it is a silly 
calumny to say that for this reason Catholics ascribe to the 
Popes the power to assign the countries of the world, to 
depose kings, etc. False assertions of this kind are made 
only in order to inspire ignorant Protestants with hatred 
and horror of Catholicism, and especially of the Holy Father. 
*^The Roman See has never taught that Catholics are not 
bound to keep their word in dealing with non-Catholics, 



44 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

nor that it is lawful to break an oath taken to non-Catholic 
monarchs, nor that the Pope may interfere with the rights 
and property of secular rulers" (Cardinal Antonelli). 

The Protestant Church, on the contrary, teaches that Jesus Christ is 
the sole Head of His Church and needs no one to act as His representa- 
tive, since He will abide with His followers in word and spirit, in His 
sacraments and graces, even to the end of the world. He appointed min- 
isters to preach the doctrines taught by the Apostles and prophets and to 
edify both themselves and their congregations by means of the Gospel, 
and these ministers are entitled to control the outward discipline of the 
Church. But they have no right to appoint or depose kings, to exercise 
secular power, to release men from their oaths, to stir up riots, or to per- 
secute those of another faith with fire and sword. 

The Catholic Reply. Whether or no the Church requires 
any one to act as the representative of Christ, is a matter 
for Christ and not for us to decide. He is, of course, the 
one supreme, invisible Head of the Church and will abide 
with her unto the end. It was in order to accomplish this 
design that He appointed a visible ministry (John xx, 21; 
Matth. xxviii, 19), whose office is not, however, only to 
preach, as Luther imagined, but to be the teachers, priests, 
and shepherds of all Catholics, and our priesthood can be 
traced back in an unbroken line to the Apostles. 

We are quite ready to admit that Protestant ministers 
have no power of government nor have they any right to 
persecute men of another faith; but why have they, never- 
theless, on many occasions shown great cruelty and intoler- 
ance towards those who do not agree with them, and why 
do they still continue to malign and slander the Catholics? 

COMMENTARY 

It is quite certain that one religion is not as good as an- 
other, and it is of the utmost importance for us to be sure 
that we belong to the one Church founded by Christ. 

I. Christ founded only one Church whereby all men 
might be saved; cf. John x, 16: ''There shall be one fold and 
one shepherd;'' Matth. xvi, 18: "Upon this rock I will build 



CHURCB AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 45 

my church;" Ephes. iv, 4-6: "One body and one spirit . . . 
one Lord, one faith, one baptism: One God and Father of 
all.'' St. Cyprian (died 258) says: "There is one God, one 
Christ, one Church, and one See, founded by the word of the 
Lord upon the rock." 
' 2. Our Holy Catholic Church can make the following 
statements about herself and the testimony of Christianity 
in all ages will vouch for their truth: — 

"I am the only teacher of truth appointed by God; I am 
the only steward of His divine gifts of grace, and the only 
safe guide to eternal life, for (a) I am one, since everywhere 
I teach the same doctrine, administer the same sacraments, 
and acknowledge the same supreme Head. If contempo- 
raries of Luther, of St. Augustine, and of the Apostles, 
respectively, could now come forward, they would recog- 
nize my doctrine as the word of God, my seven sacraments 
as true channels of grace, my supreme Head as the lawful 
successor of Peter, and me myself as the same mother who 
watched over their childhood. 

(6) "I am holy, for my Founder is holy, and it is my task 
to lead all my children to Him, the Holy One. I have never 
taught error nor falsified the means of salvation. Innumer- 
able saints in every age have been my sons and daughters. 

{c) "I am Catholic, intended for men in every age, of 
every nation, and of every rank. There has never been a time 
when I was unknown, nor a nation to which I was not sent. 

{d) "I am Apostolic, carrying on from age to age the 
light of truth kindled by Christ and conveyed to me through 
the Apostles. I keep pure and unadulterate the stream of 
graces that flows from the foot of the Cross." 

3. Just before His ascension our Lord said briefly and 
emphatically, "He that believeth not shall be condemned" 
(Mark xvi, 16; cf. John iii, 18, 36). He founded one Church 
and said of her, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him 
be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matth. xviii, 17), 
and gave her authority to bind and to loose on earth and in 
heaven (Matth. xviii, 18). The Catholic Church knows 



46 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

and can prove herself to be this one Church founded by 
Christ, hence she can never admit that her Lord and Master 
has any bride except herself since she alone is holy and with- 
out blemish (cf. Ephes. v, 25-27). Her children have always 
been firmly convinced of the truth expressed by St. Cyprian 
when he says, *^No man can have God as his Father, who 
has not the Church as his mother" {de unit, eccL, c. 6), and 
*^ Outside the Church there is no salvation." When there- 
fore the Catholic Church claims that in her alone salvation 
is to be found, she is acting in conformity with our Lord's 
words and is no more to be accused of presumption than is 
our Lord for speaking of Himself as the Son of God. 

Since salvation is to be found in the Catholic Church 
alone, she invites all to enter her fold in accordance with her 
Master's command, but she condemns none who without 
their fault do not outwardly belong to her. If any one ob- 
stinately cuts himself off from her communion and renounces 
her doctrines he ceases to walk in the way of life, and even 
St. John, who insists so much on the duty of charity, for- 
bids his disciples to receive such a person into their houses 
or to salute him (John ii, 10). Any one, however, who acts 
according to the dictates of his own conscience and errs 
through no fault of his own may be saved. But he may be 
saved, not by his adhering to false doctrines by which the 
truth is obscured but rather because he possesses some re- 
mains of the one ancient Catholic truth, for such remnants 
of the faith are preserved even by the Christians separated 
from the Catholic Church, and resemble an inheritance 
carried by a wanderer away from his home into foreign 
countries. 

Origin of the Papacy 

With regard to the papacy, Protestants acknowledge that the early 
bishops of Rome were highly respected, but they deny that in the primi- 
tive Church Rome occupied the position that she now does, of mother 
and mistress {magistra) of all other churches. 

In reply it may be pointed out that unity in faith and 
communion cannot exist unless there is a visible centre and 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 47 

a common ruler. Wherever in the world men unite for any 
common purpose there must be a centre of unity. Even in 
the Protestant national churches there is a governing body, 
but in their case it cannot claim any divine origin and com- 
mission. Where was in the early ages of the Catholic Church 
this indispensable centre of unity, without which she would 
inevitably have perished during the centuries of persecu- 
tion or have succumbed to the attacks of heretics? Whither 
did men turn in search of the supreme arbiter, whose utter- 
ances upheld the truth? It is impossible to discover in the 
writings of the Fathers or in those of any other early author, 
whether friend or foe, a single allusion to any centre of unity 
except Rome, or to any head of the Christian Church except 
the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. 

Even if no direct statement to this effect existed it would 
not be reasonable to assume that it was otherwise. But we 
have evidence enough to show that the early Christians re- 
garded the Roman Church as their mother and mistress 
precisely as we do to-day. Even Professor Harnack, a 
famous Protestant theologian, admits that in the first three 
centuries the bishops of Rome possessed an unmistakable 
primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church {Dogmen- 
gesch., I, p. 404, etc.). 

St. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostles, calls the Church 
of Rome the ^^ president of the bond of charity," i.e., of 
Christendom; a dispute at Corinth was settled by St. 
Clement, the Bishop of Rome, even during the lifetime of 
St. John the Evangelist; St. Irenaeus tells us that every 
church is bound to agree with the Roman Church on 
account of her preeminent position; St. Cyprian calls 
the Roman Church " the mother," and says that he 
who forsakes the See of Peter must not imagine himself 
to belong to the Church, since the Roman See occupies 
the first place. In short, the whole of ancient Christianity 
is permeated by the idea expressed by St. Ambrose in the 
words, Ubi PetruSyibi ecclesia, ^^ wherever Peter is, there is 
the Church." 



48 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Protestants maintain, however, that the supremacy of Rome was long 
in question, that finally only a few isolated communities in other coun- 
tries professed allegiance to the Roman bishop; it was not until the em- 
perors became Christians that the supremacy of the bishops of Rome 
was imiversally recognized. Gregory the Great declared, about the year 
600, that whoever arrogated to himself the title of "imiversal bishop" 
was a forerunner of Antichrist, and therefore he could not have regarded 
himself as having unlimited spiritual jurisdiction over Christendom. _ 

No evidence is forthcoming in support of the assertion 
that the churches of Christendom submitted to the Bishop 
of Rome only at a later stage. What motive could they have 
had for thus voluntarily submitting to him if they had not 
from the beginning regarded him as their lawful superior? 
Experience shows that individuals and conmaunities are 
far more apt to seek independence than to become subject 
to a common head. The writings of the early Fathers 
abound in admonitions to those disposed to sever themselves 
from Catholic unity, and they lay great stress upon the 
necessity of union with the Church and the Bishop of Rome. 
Even heretics in every age have desired union with Rome; 
for instance, in the year 160 Marcion, a Gnostic, appealed to 
the Pope. If once the Bishop of Rome solemnly declared 
that any man had fallen away from the faith of the Apostles 
and the ancient Church, that person was no longer regarded 
as a true Christian by any Christian community in the world. 
Thus, in the second century. Pope Hyginus excommunicated 
Cerdo and Valentine as heretics. After teachers of heresy 
had tried in vain to win over the Popes to their way of think- 
ing, they invariably displayed utmost hostility to Rome. 

It certainly did not occcur to the Roman Pontiffs to exalt 
themselves above the whole of Christendom, but they, like 
all the faithful from the Apostolic age onward, were per- 
fectly aware that in accordance with the will of Christ they 
were called to occupy the highest position in His Church 
of which they were the visible head. They did not arrogate 
this honour to themselves but received it from Christ. It is 
foolish to assert, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, 
that only after the lapse of six centuries all the bishops began 



CHURCB AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 49 

to regard the Bishop of Rome as their spiritual head, that 
even Gregory the Great was unaware of any special preroga- 
tive belonging to the Popes! Gregory recognized most fully 
his position as supreme head of the Church, and was energetic 
in enforcing its recognition by others. He would not allow 
John the Faster, the bishop of Constantinople, to assume 
the title of oecumenical or Catholic patriarch because it 
might give rise to misunderstandings, and he declared em- 
phatically that the Pope had the right to call himself the 
universal or Catholic bishop; and while the Popes had not 
used this title, it had been conferred upon them by the 
Council of Chalcedon. The bishop of Constantinople openly 
and repeatedly acknowledged his see to be subject to that 
of Rome (Greg., M. epist,, 1. ix, cp. 12, ad Joannem Syrac, 
episc). 

The Primacy of St, Peter 

Protestants maintain that a change took place soon after the time of 
Gregory the Great and that then the Bishop of Rome became the Pope, 
basing his claim to supremacy upon the fact that our Lord founded His 
Church on St. Peter. But the other Apostles received the same powers as 
St. Peter (Matth. xviii, 18), and he even allowed himself to be corrected 
by St. Paul. According to many Protestants St. Peter was never Bishop 
of Rome and therefore the Popes cannot pretend to be his successors; 
yet it was owing to this fiction that the papacy acquired the vast power 
it possessed under Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII, and 
to this day the Popes uphold the same claim. 

'^A change took place soon after the time of Gregory the 
Great." How was this possible? Our opponents suppose 
that the Church could without a visible head emerge tri- 
umphant from the centuries of greatest inward and outward 
conflict, and then suddenly all Christendom consented to 
acknowledge voluntarily the supremacy of the Bishop of 
Rome, without a protest on the part of any other bishop, 
without question as to Rome's right to take precedence. Such 
a thing is inconceivable; the rock must always have been 
there, otherwise in the early centuries of Christianity the 
gates of hell would many times have prevailed against the 



50 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Church, and the same rock stood firm in the Middle Ages 
as it does to-day. Each successive generation clung closely 
to it, but fresh foes devised fresh modes of attack, necessi- 
tating recourse in many cases to fresh methods of defence. 

It is quite a mistake to imagine that it occurred to the 
bishops of Rome, after the time of Gregory the Great, to base 
upon our Lord's words to St. Peter (Matth. xvi. i8, 19) a 
claim to be entitled to govern the whole Church. Such a 
claim would have been rejected with scorn, had it not 
always existed from the time of the Apostles onward and had 
it not been universally recognized as justified by our Lord's 
commands. At the present time many thoughtful Protes- 
tants admit the truth of this argument. For instance, 
Schelling {Phil, der Ofenb.^ II, 301) says: 'Xhrist's words 
decide once for all the foremost position occupied by Peter 
among the Apostles; nothing short of the blindness induced 
by party spirit could make any one fail to perceive this fact.'' 

That the other Apostles also possessed great powers we 
Catholics know perfectly well, and we reverence these powers 
which are still enjoyed by our bishops and which Christ 
undoubtedly intended to continue in His Church. But did 
the other Apostles possess all the authority bestowed upon 
Peter? No; to him alone were addressed the words, ^^Thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," to 
last not for one generation only, but as long as the gates of 
hell assail it; ''I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom 
of heaven"; ^' Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." 

What do Protestants think is proved by the fact that St. 
Paul withstood St. Peter to his face (Gal. ii, 11)? We must 
imderstand first why he did so. He blamed St. Peter for 
yielding to the prejudices of Jewish converts, as also St. 
James and others had done. Any one else was free to act 
as he chose in such a matter, but Peter, on account of his 
exalted position, was bound to set an example and not to 
mislead others, and therefore St. Paul rebuked him whereas 
he did not remonstrate with St. James. Even at the present 
day every bishop, and in some circiunstances every Catholic, 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 51 

has a right to put forward his own well-grounded opinion 
in opposition to that of the Holy Father and to offer resist- 
ance to any manifest injustice on his part. Such is the teach- 
ing of Bellarmine, one of the most ardent supporters of 
papal authority {de Rom, Pont., II, 29). St. Paul was not 
singular in availing himself of this right, and his example 
has been followed by many great saints such as St. Bernard, 
St. Catharine of Siena, and St. Bridget, whose action in this 
respect has been no obstacle to their canonization, nor did 
St. Paul's rebuke at Antioch cause any breach between him 
and St. Peter or prejudice the reverence paid to the latter 
in the Church. 

Some Protestants declare that St. Peter was never Bishop 
of Rome, and that therefore the Popes cannot claim to be his 
successors. This is an extraordinary statement. If it is cor- 
rect, who then was the first Pope and where did he come from? 
Did he suddenly take possession of a see that did not exist, 
exercise an office that had never been instituted? Even 
though the title of ^Tope" was not given to St. Peter and his 
immediate successors, he was regarded by the early Church 
in precisely the same way as we to-day regard Benedict XV, 
i.e., as the visible head of the Church appointed by Christ. 
All of St. Peter's successors have been recognized as such, 
and although individually they discharged the duties of their 
office in various ways adapted to the circumstances of the 
age and the needs of the Church, they were all convinced 
that they were appointed by Christ to guide and govern the 
Church as His representatives, and all Christians in commun- 
ion with them knew in every age that where Peter is, there 
is the Church founded upon the rock (Jerome, ep, 15 et 16). 

A Protestant scholar writes as follows: '*If the prince of 
the Apostles ever set foot in the eternal city, he certainly came 
not as an ordinary traveller but in virtue of his Apostolic 
power, and his martyrdom was but the glorious conclusion of 
the active work done in accordance with his calling amongst 
the people of Rome. Further, if episcopacy is of divine in- 
stitution — and many Protestants believe it to be so — the 



52 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

claim of the Roman Church to trace back the Une of her bish- 
ops to the Apostle Peter does not appear unreasonable'' 
(Lipsius, Zeitschrift fur prot. TheoL, 1876, p. 562). 

It is both true and untrue to say that the claims put forward 
by Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII are still 
made by the Popes of the present day. It is quite correct and 
obvious to every thoughtful person that the present Pope 
claims the rights inseparable from the government of the 
Church throughout the world just as every previous Pope 
has done. If he acted otherwise, he would not be discharging 
the functions of his ofl&ce. 

Papal Jurisdiction and Infltcence 

It is, however, a mistake to include amongst these rights 
claimed by the Popes now, all the jurisdiction in secular mat- 
ters ever held or claimed by any Pope. In the Middle Ages 
the Pope was acknowledged by common consent to be the 
greatest benefactor of nations and the defender of civil and 
national rights and liberty. Hence the then existing inter- 
national law conferred upon him very far-reaching powers in 
civil matters, and when these powers were exercised wisely 
and vigorously the nations submitted voluntarily to the 
Pope's orders, in which they saw no illegal oppression but 
rather beneficent measures for their defence. These powers, 
however, were not directly connected with the government 
of the Church, and they have been withdrawn as Pope Pius 
IX publicly declared in 187 1, so that the Popes now no longer 
either possess or claim them. It is foolish to alarm people by 
speaking of the extraordinary powers of interference in civil 
life which the Pope is said to claim. Under the energetic and 
imposing rule of Popes like Gregory VII, Innocent III, and 
Boniface VIII the papacy was outwardly mighty, but these 
men aimed at promoting only the highest interests of man- 
kind, not at enslaving nations or the human intellect. They 
desired to secure the triumph of truth and the liberty of na- 
tions and to protect the Church against arrogant princes. 
They wished the Church of Christ to be free and to protect 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 53 

her, so that in accordance with her divine commission she 
might lead all men along the surest way to everlasting 
salvation. 

Bohmer, the renowned historian, remarks that in the Mid- 
dle Ages the Pope was not at all what unhappily many writers 
assume him to have been, viz., a monster enthroned in St. 
Peter's at Rome, ready to hurl into the abyss any living 
creature that would not slavishly cringe before him. 

Not one but many volumes would have to be written if all 
the misrepresentations, distortions, and falsifications, inten- 
tional and unintentional, of Catholic doctrine and historical 
facts were to be corrected. Many books have indeed been 
written on this subject, but they are useless as long as people 
wilfully close their ears to the truth. Some calumnies and 
misrepresentations never fail to bob up again no matter how 
often they have been proved false. 

It seems more profitable to make regarding the papacy a 
few statements that are acknowledged to be historically 
true, although Protestants seldom hear these things, so great 
is their fear of the subject. 

Herder, who was by no means particularly well disposed 
towards the Catholic Church and the papacy, was forced by 
the study of history to confess. that the Pope might justly 
exclaim to every age: '^But for me, you would not be as ad- 
vanced as you are." This is literally true. 

Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson, a Presbyterian minister and 
head of the Central High School in Philadelphia, said recently: 
"The Protestant historians are coming more and more to 
recognize the splendid services the Papacy rendered to Chris- 
tendom in rescuing the Church of Christ from the slavish 
dependence upon the civil power which is seen in the Greek 
communion, and especially in Russia. 

"Thus on foundation laid by the great Popes was built 
that independence of the Church from civil control which 
is the basis of American religious liberty." 

To whom does the whole of Christendom owe the faith and 
the high standard of morals and education that is the out- 



54 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

come of that faith? The first of all missionaries was the first 
Pope on the first Pentecost, and his immediate successors 
sealed their testimony to Christ with their blood. They 
resisted, with equal steadfastness, the persecutions that 
assailed them from without and the terrible force of false 
doctrines that would have destroyed the spirit of Christ 
within the Church. Even from the beginning they showed 
themselves to be the rock of truth, and but for them all 
morality and faith, all Christ's words and works would have 
inevitably perished and left no trace on earth. Sometimes 
Christian rulers have allied themselves with teachers of heresy 
and threatened the Church with violence, using ambitious but 
faithless prelates to further their designs and to interfere with 
the government of the Church. The Popes invariably with- 
stood this danger, and at the cost of terrible struggles they 
upheld the liberty of the Church and at the same time vigor- 
ously defended the freedom of nations. Non-Catholic writers, 
if they are impartial in their judgments, acknowledge how 
much we now owe to the great Popes of the Middle Ages. 
Herder, for instance, says: ^^It was through the Pope that 
England, as well as the greater part of Germany, and the 
Kingdoms of the North, Poland, and Hungary, became 
Christian countries. It was due to him that Europe was not 
overrun permanently by Huns, Saracens, Tartars, Turks, and 
Mongolians. But for the Roman hierarchy, Europe would 
probably have fallen a prey to despots; it would have been 
the scene of incessant warfare, unless indeed the Mongolians 
had reduced it to a desert." Von Mliller asks, ^^ What would 
have become of us without the Popes?" and supplies the 
answer, "We should have fared like the Turks." 

Dr. Kip (Rev. Wm. Ingraham Kip, D.D., later Bishop of 
the Episcopal Church in California) frankly and sorrowfully 
admits that it is, indeed, in a spirit of prejudice "that those 
outside her fold are accustomed to estimate everything which 
relates to the Church of Rome. They look at her course 
through the Middle Ages, and denounce it all as one long 
period of evil and darkness. And yet, at that time, the 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 55 

Church — changed as she may have been from her early 
purity — was the only antagonist of the ignorance and vice, 
which characterized the feudal system. It was a conflict of 
mental with physical power, and by the victory she gained, 
the world was rescued from a debasing despotism, the triimiph 
of which would have plunged our race into hopeless slavery. 
. . . No one, indeed, can read the writers of the ^ Ages' 
which we call 'Dark,' without feeling that beneath the sur- 
face was a depth of devotion, and a degree of intellectual 
light, for which they have never received due credit" {Christ- 
mas Holydays in Rome, p. 282). 

Only those who are blinded by ignorance and prejudice 
can fail to see that the Popes not only faithfully guarded the 
priceless treasure of faith and were unwearied in their efforts 
to make it more widely known, but they also preserved 
morality, civilization, and culture against all the assaults of 
enemies, and bestowed these gifts upon the nations of Europe. 
^'Education for all'' were the words uttered by Innocent III 
ages before they became the war cry of the foes of Holy 
Church and of the people. The Popes desired all to receive 
education and did their utmost to put it within reach of the 
labourer as well as the king's son, for as another Pope, 
Alexander III, declared, we ought not to sell for money a gift 
bestowed on us by heaven, but offer it gratis to all. 

There have never been more vigorous and resolute sup- 
porters of liberty than the Popes. Gregory I, Eugenius IV, 
Sixtus IV, Pius II, Innocent VIII, and others issued orders 
for the suppression of slavery. Paul III, Urban VIII, Bene- 
dict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI advocated the setting 
free of negro slaves and upheld the rights of the Indians and 
other pagan nations. As recently as May 5, 1888, Leo XIII 
declared that the abolition of slavery in Brazil had been the 
gift most welcome to him on the occasion of his jubilee as a 
priest. 

In the Pope, Christian nations have always found their 
most efficient and often their only protector against violence 
and injustice. Those who reproach the Popes for having 



S6 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

dared to oppose secular rulers are most ungrateful as well as 
unreasonable. That the Popes ventured to act as they did 
is most honourable to them. What would have become of 
Church and state if the Popes had been cowardly enough to 
raise no protest against unjust deeds on the parts of kings and 
princes and had been content to flatter them? They stood like 
St. John before Herod and withstood the mighty of this 
world, saying when occasion arose, ^^It is not lawful." In 
their dealings with all men they used the language of truth 
and justice and boldly reminded kings and emperors of their 
sacred obligations towards God and their subjects, whilst at 
the same time the papacy gave powerful support to secular 
government. The Popes never failed to insist upon the prin- 
ciple, ^^Fear God, honour the king," enunciated by St. Peter, 
the first occupant of the See of Rome (i Peter ii, 17). As St. 
Augustine says of the Church, they taught kings to care for 
their people and admonished the people to obey their kings 
{de moribus EccL cath,, I, 30). They added to the title of king 
the beautiful words ^^by the grace of God." Whenever the 
secular power begins to be contemptuous of support, it is on 
the verge of its downfall. This view is expressed by Prou- 
dhon, a modern revolutionary, who writes as follows of the 
much maligned Boniface VIII: '^The kings went so far as 
to lay violent hands upon the Pope. They believed that they 
no longer needed any support except that afforded by the 
sword and the justice of their cause. From that time on- 
ward the monarchy tended to decline, for when the Church 
was disregarded the principle of authority was shaken to its 
foundations. Thenceforth every citizen could defy the king 
and say: ^Who are you, that I should obey you?'" (Con- 
fessions d^un revolutionnaire,) 

The Papacy and Civilization 

The nations of the present day boast of their knowledge 
of truth, of their civilization and orderly life, but the light 
in which they walk would not illumine their way had it not 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 57 

been kindled at that sacred fire brought down by Christ from 
heaven, — that fire which no one on earth has so faithfully 
maintained and watched over as the Roman Pontiffs, al- 
though they are frequently ignored and actually despised as 
hostile to the light. The papacy is still with us, imposing in 
its dignity in spite of all hatred and opposition and although 
it has in every age been assailed with all the violence and dia- 
bolical cunning which men could devise. No name is so fre- 
quently mentioned in every language spoken in the world as 
that of the Holy Father, and though he has no army to enforce 
his commands and extend his dominion, there is no one whose 
utterances are received so reverently and obeyed so loyally, 
or for whom so many thousands of hearts feel such intense 
love and veneration. 

Where is the chief stronghold of the truths of Christianity 
which afforded strength and consolation to our forefathers in 
every generation? Every one acquainted with the tendencies 
of the age must acknowledge it to be in Rome. Hardly any 
one outside the Catholic Church now ventures to speak of 
religious topics as if perfectly convinced of their truth. In 
these sad times there is no positive faith in Christ as indeed 
the Son of God and our only Saviour, no faith in the efficacy 
of His death on the Cross or in the imperative duty to follow 
His example, no faith in freedom of will or purity of heart 
except in the Church of which the Roman Pontiff is the su- 
preme teacher and pastor. 

If we consider all these facts, and observe how the papacy 
has outlasted the greatest empires and survived the most 
furious onsets, we are forced to ask how this could possibly 
be if it were really founded upon a system of deception. 

The very existence of the papacy is the best evidence of 
its divine institution. The unworthiness of an occupant of 
the Holy See has not been permitted to frustrate God's 
design in establishing this supreme office or to diminish the 
value of the treasures intrusted to his charge. At the Council 
of Ephesus not a protest was raised when Philip the legate 
proclaimed what has invariably been the faith of the Catholic 



S8 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Church: *^It is a fact, recognized in every century, that St. 
Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the 
faith and foundation stone of the Catholic Church, received 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and in the person of his 
successors still lives and governs." 

Lord Macaulay says of the Papacy: 

'* There is not, and there never was, on this earth, a work 
of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Ro- 
man CathoKc Church. The history of that Church joins 
together the two great ages of himaan civilization. No other 
institution is left standing which carries the mind back to 
the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, 
and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian 
amphitheater. The proudest royal houses are but of yester- 
day, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. 
That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope 
who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century, to the 
Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the 
time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the 
twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in an- 
tiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when com- 
pared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, 
and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, 
not a mere antique; but full of life and youthful vigor. The 
Catholic Church is still sending forth to the furthest ends of 
the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in 
Kent with Augustin; and still confronting hostile kings with 
the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The num- 
ber of her children is greater than in any former age. Her 
acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated 
her for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency 
extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains 
of the Missouri and Cape Horn — countries which, a cen- 
tury hence, may not improbably contain a population as 
large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of 
her community are certainly not fewer than a hundred and 
fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all the other 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 59 

Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty mil- 
lions [census of 1840]. Nor do we see any sign which indi- 
cates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. 
She saw the commencement of all the governments and of 
all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the 
world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to 
see the end of them all. She was great and respected before 
the Saxon had set foot on Britain — before the Frank had 
passed the Rhine — when Grecian eloquence still flourished 
at Antioch — when idols were still worshiped in the temple of 
Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when 
some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a 
vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London 
Bridge to sketch the ruins of S. Paul's" {Miscellanies). 

The Papacy and Civil Government 

Protestants assert that the civil government has often come into con- 
flict with the papacy in consequence of the demands made by the Popes. 

No one denies that the Jewish and Roman authorities often 
opposed Christ and His Apostles, and that our Lord more than 
once foretold to His disciples that they would be dragged 
before kings and rulers for His name's sake. We should be 
justified, therefore, in viewing with distrust any form of 
church government that in all respects had invariably been 
in complete accord with the secular power. 

Of sovereigns excommunicated in the Middle Ages by the 
Popes, we hear much of the German emperors, Henry IV and 
Frederick II; the former aroused universal indignation by 
oppressing his people, and incurred the sentence of excom- 
munication because he bestowed bishoprics on his own favour- 
ites or sold them to the highest bidders. He even presumed 
to order Pope Gregory VII to relinquish his see. The princes 
and bishops of Germany fully approved of the Pope's action, 
and finally, in order to save his throne, Henry came as a 
penitent to Canossa and was there released from the ban 
laid upon him. He was not, however, forced by the Pope 



6o THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

to come, but rather did so in opposition to the Holy Father's 
desire. Even Protestant historians admit that Gregory VII 
had the right on his side. Gregorovius, an historian hostile 
to the papacy, calls the incident at Canossa the triumph of 
moral force over savage despotism and acknowledges that 
the monarchy was degraded, not by the Pope but by the 
emperor. 

Frederick II was excommunicated because with the help 
of Saracen princes he plundered churches and monasteries, 
appropriated the possessions of the Church, made no secret 
of his unbelief, and failed to keep the solemn oath by which 
he had pledged himself to go on a Crusade. Under certain 
circumstances it was taken for granted that the Popes had 
power to depose as well as to excommimicate secular rulers; 
this involved no usurpation of power, but was recognized by 
secular governments as a right belonging to the papacy. 

The Papacy and the Church 

Protestants assert that the pretensions of the papacy have led to dis- 
putes with general councils, bishops, and scholars, and in corrobora- 
tion of this statement they refer to the condemnation of the Coimcils of 
Constance and Bale. 

The Council of Bale was not a general council, nor was 
that of Constance, when the sessions were held in which the 
relation of the council to the Pope was under discussion. 
These are historical facts. Even in the primitive Church there 
were divisions and heresies, so it need arouse no surprise if 
subsequently also bishops, both individually and in councils, 
as well as Catholic scholars came into conflict with the Popes. 
It does not follow, however, that in so doing they necessarily 
had the right on their side. 

Protestants tell us that the utterances of the Popes are enough to 
reveal the true character of the papacy, and they quote the following 
and similar passages: "We declare, assert, and decide that all creatures 
are subject to the Roman Pontiff, and without this behef none need hope 
for salvation." "The Roman Pontiff is the vicegerent of God and 
Christ on earth. He possesses plenitude of power over all nations and 
states, he can judge every man, but has no judge superior to himself." 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 6i 

It seems unreasonable to quote detached sentences, 
written at a time when opinions prevailed such as we are 
unable now to appreciate. Would it not be more sensible 
to refer to the encychcals of a Pope like Leo XIII, who 
discussed the relation between the spiritual and tem- 
poral power? Protestants suppose that it makes no 
difference whence they take their quotations, since the 
Popes have abandoned none of their pretensions and 
Benedict XV would now claim the same rights as Boni- 
face VIII. This is certainly true as far as the essen- 
tial rights of the papacy are concerned, for no Pope 
can relinquish any of the prerogatives attached by 
Christ to his office. He must guard what has been trans- 
mitted to him, otherwise he would be unfaithful to 
his sacred duties and to the Church of Christ. But in 
their attitude towards the civil government the Popes 
must adapt themselves to the age in which they live. 
It would be foolish to suggest that the Popes of the first 
three centuries assumed the same position towards the 
Roman emperors as was assumed by those of the Middle 
Ages towards the German emperors. It is no less foolish to 
try to make people believe that the utterances of a mediaeval 
Pope against the secular government of his day are appli- 
cable to the present time. 

As a matter of fact, however, the words of Boniface VII 
convey just what St. C)T)rian, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome 
had taught long before, and what was a legitimate deduc- 
tion from our Lord^s words spoken when He instituted the 
ofl&ce of chief bishop (Matth. xvi, i8), viz., that the only 
sure way to salvation was in the Church founded by Him- 
self on the rock of Peter. If the Pope judges any man he 
does so only with regard to things belonging to his office, 
such as faith, unbelief, virtue, or sin; and he never judges 
arbitrarily but in accordance with the unchanging laws of 
God. There must be a supreme judge and it is his duty to 
act thus, and the greater his power the greater is his respon- 
sibility. His official verdicts cannot be criticized by any 



62 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

higher authority on earth, but the whole Church witnesses 
his actions and knows what powers her supreme head is 
authorized to use. 

Papal Infallibility 

Protestants are fond of discussing the dogma of papal infallibility, 
proclaimed by the Vatican Council in spite of the opposition offered by- 
many eminent and learned bishops. They maintain that according to 
this dogma the Pope can alter the rules laid down by Christ and the 
Apostles and introduce new doctrines unknown to the early Church. He 
has a right to control all the discipHne, worship, and ceremonies of the 
Church; he can utter and revoke sentence of excommunication; he can 
lay nations imder an interdict and release them from it. He claims the 
right to appoint all bishops and has power to remove them; he calls 
general councils, presides over them, and confirms or repudiates their 
proceedings; moreover, it is within his prerogative to demand contribu- 
tions from the property of the Church. Everything, both great and small, 
in the Church is subject to his supervision. 

The Vatican Council did nothing more than declare to be 
a dogma of faith something which had been held without 
question by our forefathers. The infallibility of the supreme 
teacher appointed by Christ, on matters affecting faith and 
morals, is only a logical result of the foundation of the one 
Church for the purpose of affording all men a sure way of 
salvation. If the truth revealed by God was not to perish, 
if the food of souls was to be imparted and the right way of 
life taught to all men, there must be some one able to de- 
cide with infallible certainty what Christ taught and wished. 
Our Lord's aim was that all men might be saved, hence He 
must desire means to exist for the realization of this aim; in 
other words He must intend that there be one infallible 
teacher in His Church. It was for this reason that He prayed 
(Luke xxii, 31, 32) that St. Peter's faith might never fail 
and bade him, being once converted, confirm his brethren. 
Dollinger interprets this commission according to Catholic 
doctrine, and says: "The See of Peter was to be a stronghold 
of truth, a bulwark of firm faith for the support of all, for 
our Lord's words and prayer did not apply merely to one 
individual at one particular moment, but to the whole Church 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 63 

and its future needs; they both laid the foundation and built 
upon it. Looking forward over all future ages, Christ prayed 
in similar fashion for the unity of all members of His Church, 
in order that this unity should ever bear eloquent testimony 
before the whole world to the truth of His divine mission." 

Reasonable men perceive that there must be some one 
centre of unity in the Church and that this can be preserved 
only by means of an infallible teaching authority. Thus 
E. von Hartmann says: ^^ Papal infallibility is the long- 
desired culmination of the unity of faith in the Catholic 
Church, and all argument to the contrary is unmeaning on 
the lips of those who regard the Pope as the successor 
of Peter, and Peter as the author of infallibly inspired 
epistles.'' 

Even Luther recognized the need of an infallible supreme 
teacher of truth, and decided that he would himself occupy 
this position. He says: "There is no angel in heaven, still 
less is there a man on earth, capable and bold enough to 
criticize my doctrine. He who refuses to accept it, cannot 
be saved, and he who thinks otherwise is destined for hell" 
{Works, Wittenberg ed., II, Erlang., 28, 144). Luther cer- 
tainly owed it to his followers to bring forward some proof 
of his right to use such language, whereas the infallibility 
of the Pope rests upon the same immovable foundation as 
the Church herself. 

Protestants tell us that many eminent and learned bishops 
opposed the definition of papal infallibility as a dogma of 
faith; no doubt they would have considered these bishops 
still more eminent and learned if they had persisted in their 
opposition after the definition was promulgated. Protestants 
perhaps are not aware that before every session of a council 
the Holy Ghost is invoked and begged to assist the members 
in discovering and stating all the obstacles to the definition 
of a dogma. Therefore it is not only permissible but obliga- 
tory for the assembled bishops to state their difficulties. 
Yet one of them, the Bishop of Cuenga in Spain, who was 
imiversally acknowledged to be a very learned man, was 



64 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

not contradicted by any one when he said, amidst general 
applause, that the objections raised to the definition were 
put forward by persons who were far from refusing to ac- 
cept the doctrine of infallibility, but wished to elicit the 
grounds for it in order that the truth might be more clearly 
revealed. Therefore every one was perfectly free to say 
what he liked against the definition, and nevertheless it was 
unanimously declared to be a divinely revealed truth. From 
the merely himian point of view we can hardly imagine a 
better guarantee for its accuracy. It is a manifest distortion 
of the truth on the part of Protestants to declare that the 
Pope alters the law of Christ and the Apostles and intro- 
duces newfangled doctrines unknown to our forefathers. 
The Vatican Council made the following explicit statement 
on this subject (sess. 4, cap. 4): '^In accordance with the cir- 
cumstances of the time, the Roman Pontiffs have always 
propounded for our belief those doctrines which they, by 
God's aid, recognized as in harmony with Holy Scripture 
and the tradition of the Apostles. For the Holy Ghost was 
promised to St. Peter's successors not in order that they by 
His revelation should make known a new doctrine, but in 
order that by His assistance they should carefully preserve 
and faithfully interpret the revealed truth handed down by 
the Apostles, i.e., the deposit of faith." The gift of infalli- 
bility is bestowed upon the Pope that he may safeguard 
the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, and allow no new 
doctrines to find their way into the ancient faith handed down 
to us by the early Church; it is most assuredly not intended 
to enable him to introduce doctrines that he himself has 
devised. 

To a Catholic it seems childish to enimaerate the powers 
exercised by the Pope. All his authority is due to the posi- 
tion that he occupies in the Church. It would lead us too 
far from the subject to discuss in detail the ecclesiastical 
points to which allusion is made; moreover, what can it 
matter to a Protestant, who cares nothing about the Pope, 
whether he regulates the breviary or the ritual of the Church 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 65 

or claims a share in her possessions? Every Protestant may 
rest assured that the Pope's demands are moderate in com- 
parison with those of some secular governments. 

The Powers of the Pope 

The Pope is alleged by Protestants to claim the following powers as 
his rights: Supreme dominion over every individual soul, exercised by 
means of indulgences and anathemas (the latter terrible word is sup- 
posed to mean abandoning the soul to hell and Satan); power to de- 
termine the lot of the dead. We are told that the Pope ordered the an- 
gels to bear to Paradise the souls of such as died on pilgrimage to Rome, 
that he is constantly calling souls out of purgatory, and that we are 
bound to recognize and invoke as saints all whom the Pope declares 
to be such. This is supposed to be the power of the keys, ascribed to 
the Pope, and we are asked where in Holy Scripture we can discover 
that the Son of God instituted such a papacy, bestowed upon it such 
authority, and made us subject to it. 

No, such statements are not to be found in Holy Scripture, 
nor are we told that we are to be subject to a papacy of this 
sort nor that our salvation is assured. All that we find is 
that Christ instituted the ofiice of supreme teacher, priest, 
and shepherd, and bade us submit to it if we wish to be saved. 
The Bible contains nothing at all on the subject of the 
Protestant Churches and their systems of government. Not 
only is it impossible to discover in Holy Scripture any trace 
of such a papacy as the Protestants describe, but it is equally 
impossible to discover such a thing in any Catholic Catechism 
or in the mind of any Catholic. Christ did indeed most 
solemnly and without restriction give the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven to St. Peter (Matth. xvi, 19), but when the 
state intrusts to the governor the keys of a prison, no one 
supposes that he can imprison and release men as he chooses. 
When a sovereign gives the keys of the treasury to an ofl&cial, 
is it that he may use the money as he likes? Certainly not. 
In every case the person holding the keys is bound to use 
them in accordance with the wishes and orders of the owner 
who intrusted him with them, and the Pope can exercise his 
authority only in accordance with the wishes and instruc- 



66 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

tions of Christ. No Catholic is ignorant of this fact. The 
Pope cannot close the gate of heaven against any one who 
desires to be saved and honestly does what God requires 
of him, nor can he open that gate to any obstinate and im- 
penitent sinner. The Pope cannot command any angel to 
bear to Paradise the soul of one who has died in the state of 
mortal sin even though he was on a pilgrimage to Rome, 
nor can he hand over to the devil the soul of one who has 
died in the state of grace. Nor is he able to release souls 
from purgatory and to raise to the altars as saints men whom 
God has not sanctified. No Pope has ever claimed to possess 
such powers. 

The question of indulgences will be discussed later. As 
to anathemas, St. Paul pronounced an anathema against 
every preacher of heresy (Gal. i, 9), and even speaks of de- 
livering a notorious sinner in Corinth over to Satan (i Cor. 
V, 5). When the Pope pronounces sentence of excommunica- 
tion he solemnly declares that the person concerned is cut 
off from the communion of the Church and her means of 
grace, but he by no means condemns him to eternal perdi- 
tion. He tells the excommunicated person that he is not on 
the road leading to life everlasting, and this is necessary in 
order that the faithful may be put on their guard. It is not 
the Pope who hands over an obstinate heretic or an impeni- 
tent sinner to Satan, but the heretic or sinner himself by 
his heresy or sins which separate him from the truth and 
grace of Christ. No Pope has ever uttered a sentence of 
eternal damnation against any man, whereas it is a notorious 
fact that Luther cursed the Pope, the bishop, and all who 
did not agree with him. For instance, he addressed Schwenk- 
feld thus: ^'May the Lord curse thee, thou Satan, and may 
thy spirit, that calleth thee, and the way that thou runnest, 
and all who have dealings with thee, be damned with thee 
and thy blasphemies" {Table Talk, 74, 6). 

If ever a Pope has prayed that angels might carry to 
heaven the souls of those who died on a pilgrimage to Rome, 
and if he happens to use words that might convey the idea 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 67 

that he calls upon the angels to do so — though I know of 
no such utterance — every Catholic understands that the 
Pope has neither the wish nor the authority to command 
angels to carry direct to Paradise a soul that is still contami- 
nated with grievous sin. Should a pilgrim die on the way 
to Rome, where he hopes to receive the benefits that the 
Pope has a right to bestow, the Pope is entitled to allow that 
pilgrim to receive the benefits as fully as if the pilgrimage 
had been completed, assuming, of course, that the man is 
worthy of their reception. 

We shall have occasion later on to discuss the worship of 
saints. For the present it is enough to point out that no 
Pope ever can or will declare any one to be a saint, unless 
God Himself shows him to be so by conferring upon him 
extraordinary graces. No Pope, for instance, could canonize 
Henry VIII, nor has any Pope ever declared him to be 
damned. If you choose to consider Henry VIII a saint, well 
and good, but what guarantee have you that your opinion 
is correct? If we honour Francis of Assisi, or Benedict, or 
any one else as a saint, we wish to have assurance that we 
are not venerating some unworthy person, and we derive 
this assurance from the Holy Father's words. We know 
that he never declares any one to be a saint except after a 
most searching investigation and the removal of every 
possible doubt. 

A Catholic looks upon the Pope as a loving Father who 
desires only to guide the souls intrusted to his charge along 
the way of salvation, who sympathizes with all in error, who 
longs for all to attain to the knowledge of the one truth, who 
prays and urges us to pray for all men, for those in authority, 
for pagans, Jews, and heretics, and who is the safeguard of 
truth and justice, mercy and love. Thus does every Catholic 
regard one whom a Protestant fancies to be a monster de- 
stroying the souls and bodies of men. If the Protestant 
were right, surely no one would be a Catholic. If the Pope 
resembled the false descriptions often given of him, no one 
would blame us should we abandon him; we need feat no 



68 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

persecution, but, on the contrary, many would applaud our 
action. As it is, however, we cling to the Pope with unfeigned 
affection, and this would be impossible if he were really 
what Protestants believe him to be. They assert that he 
lives in greater splendour than the mightiest monarchs, that 
his power is to theirs what the light of the sun is to that of 
the moon. ^^ Secular rulers ought to know that they cannot 
hold ofl&ce unless they are subservient to the Pope," etc., etc. 
We have already seen that formerly Catholic nations volun- 
tarily ascribed to the Pope many rights that modern states 
do not accord to him, and the Popes have accepted these 
limitations to their power. It is both foolish and mislead- 
ing to apply to the age in which we live, words uttered by 
some Pope under quite different circiunstances. 

Spiritual and Temporal Authority 

The Popes and the Catholic Church have always taught 
that both the spiritual and temporal powers exist in accord- 
ance with God's will, and that each in its own sphere derives 
its authority from Him who said, ^^ All power is given me in 
heaven and on earth." We do not maintain that the Pope's 
spiritual authority is superior to the state's temporal power, 
but we do believe that the kingdom of which Christ acknowl- 
edged Himself King, and which He appointed the Pope to gov- 
ern as His representative, is superior to a state governed by 
such a man as Pilate; yet there is no natural antagonism 
between these two kingdoms, and it is God's will that they 
should cooperate in guiding men to their true goal in this life 
and the next. Every Christian sovereign is bound to fulfil 
the law of Christ and to govern his people in the spirit of 
Christ. In the Middle Ages kings and emperors often treated 
the Church as their servant rather than as their mother, and 
then the Popes enforced their rights vigorously, thus showing 
themselves to be benefactors of the people. Johann von 
Mliller, a famous historian writes: "Gregory, Alexander, and 
Innocent raised a barrier against the tide that threatened 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 69 

to overflow the whole world. Their fatherly care raised up 
the hierarchy and insured the liberty of the various states." 

Some years ago Woodrow Wilson, now President of the 
United States, delivered an address before the student body 
of Princeton University, lucidly setting forth the enormous 
service rendered by the Church to civil government during 
the Middle Ages. He said in part: "No society is renewed 
from the top; every society is renewed from the bottom. I 
can give you an illustration, concerning that that has always 
interested me profoundly. The only reason why government 
did not suffer dry rot in the Middle Ages under the aristo- 
cratic systems which governed them, was that the men who 
were the efficient instruments of government — most of the 
officials of government — the men who were efficient — were 
drawn from the Church, from that great Church body which 
we now distinguish from other church bodies as the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

"The Roman Catholic Church then, as now, was a great 
democracy. There was no peasant so humble that he might 
not become a priest and no priest so obscure that he might 
not become the Pope of Christendom. 

"Every chancellery in Europe, every court in Europe, 
was ruled by these learned, trained, and accomplished men, 
the priesthood of that great and then dominant Church. 

"So, what kept government alive in the Middle Ages was 
this constant rise of sap from the bottom, from the ranks, 
from the rank and file of the great body of the people through 
the open channels of the Roman Catholic priesthood." 

No Pope has ever pretended that he could distribute the 
kingdoms as he pleased; if he claimed the right to do so, he 
might simply have taken possession of them. We never 
heard that a Pope appointed a sovereign against the will of 
a nation. It would be well if Protestants studied the passages 
in Leo XIII's encyclicals, in which he lays down clearly the 
true relation between Church and state. (See especially the 
encyclical dated January 10, 1890, on the Duties of Chris- 
tians as Citizens.) 



70 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Instead of referring to such contemporary utterances, how- 
ever, Protestants prefer to quote sentences torn from their 
context, breathing the spirit of ages long past. 

It is an absolute falsehood and calumny to assert that no oath 
sworn to heretics and heretical sovereigns and no compact or 
treaty made with them is binding in the eyes of the Popes. 

There is another terrible charge frequently brought against 
the papacy, viz., that whoever refused allegiance to it was 
at its mercy and had to expect to undergo tortures worse than 
death. The constant references to the trials of the Walden- 
sians and of heretics in Spain, France, England, etc., aim at 
increasing misinformation about Catholicism and at arous- 
ing bitter hatred against it. 

Again, we are told that the Pope claims over all baptized 
persons the rights of ownership. These rights, however, sim- 
ply consist in the fact that all validly baptized infants have 
received Catholic baptism, for there is no other. Luther hap- 
pily kept the old Catholic form of baptism so that the in- 
fant who receives it, receives also the sanctifying grace which 
Christ connected with the sacrament, and the child is really 
received into the new life in which God is his father and the 
ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church his mother. Thus 
in a certain sense it is true that he belongs to the Pope and 
the Catholic Church, whether aware of it or not, until he 
voluntarily adopts some other faith. Even then he may con- 
tinue in inculpable error and live according to his conscience, 
so that inwardly, though not outwardly, he is a member of the 
one Church of Christ. But, it may be asked, how does this 
unconscious membership of the Church reveal itself in the 
life of a baptized child or of a person in inculpable error? 
Surely it is in the fact that the way of salvation is open to 
them, and the Pope is far from wishing to persecute and con- 
demn such persons; on the contrary the Church teaches that 
all those who have been baptized are her children, and she 
does this in order not to be forced to condemn them but 
rather to proclaim that even those can be saved who are not 
outwardly in communion with her. 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 71 

Persecutions of Heretics 

What can we say, however, of the terrible persecutions in 
which the Popes are alleged to have shed the blood of count- 
less heretics? If there were to-day no power on earth capable 
of resisting them, would they not again proceed to torture 
and put to the rack all good Protestants? 

The Church has certainly always tried to destroy error 
and must continue to do so, for Jloly Scripture teaches that 
heresy, unbelief, and falling away from the faith are invaria- 
bly grievous sins. "If any one preach to you a gospel be- 
sides that which you have received, let him be anathema" 
(Gal. i, 9). "If any man come to you, and bring not this 
doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him ^ God 
speed you'; for he that saith unto him ^ God speed you' com- 
municateth with his wicked works'' (2 John, 10, 11). These 
are the words of Apostles, and St. Paul in another passage 
threatens the Corinthians that he may have to deal with them 
more severely, ^^ according to the power which the Lord hath 
given me unto edification and not unto destruction" (2 Cor. 
xiii, 10). 

The Church is bound to preserve the faith intrusted to her; 
she exists in order to defend it, and she can never sanction the 
teaching of a doctrine at variance with that which she has 
received. When St. Paul heard that Hymeneus and Alexan- 
der had made shipwreck concerning the faith, he did not say, 
"Let them believe whatever they like," but he "delivered 
them up to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme" 
(i Tim. i, 30). Those who refuse to believe the words of 
Christ " shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, . . . and 
shall be tormented with fire and brimstone . . . and the 
smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever, 
neither have they rest day nor night." 

This terrible threat was not uttered by a Pope, but may 
be found in the Bible which Protestants profess to believe, 
and it is addressed to all who by their own fault abandon the 
true faith which can be but one. Is it not, therefore, a matter 



72 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

of the utmost importance to ascertain whether you possess 
this one true faith? And does it not behoove the Church, as 
guardian of this faith, to do her utmost to protect it and the 
faithful committed to her charge and to drive off the wolf when 
he approaches the sheepfold? Like St. Paul, the Church 
possesses this power for edification and not for destruction. 

The Church is bound, therefore, to resist false doctrine, but 
the extirpation of the erring is not the best means of attaining 
this end. Unhappily this means was in past ages sanctioned 
and employed, but three remarks may be made on this 
subject: — 

I. The bloody persecutions of heretics did not originate 
with the Catholic Church. In Roman law, with which the 
Popes had nothing to do, heresy was a serious offence against 
the state, *^as it is far worse to offend God's majesty than the 
temporal power" (1. 63, cod. Theo., 16, 5). Forfeiture of 
possessions, exile, and even death were the penalties im- 
posed by the civil courts for this offence. The first person 
condemned to death was Priscillianus in 385, but St. Martin 
implored the emperor not to allow the sentence to be carried 
out, and Pope Siricius also disapproved of it. 

After the Roman empire with its legal system had passed 
away, the Popes undertook the task of reforming the ad- 
ministration of justice, and performed it in a way that has 
called forth the admiration of many non-Catholic scholars. 
Hinschius, a famous Protestant scholar, acknowledges the 
absolute justice of the proceedings of the Inquisition, 
although to uneducated persons the very name suggests an 
iniquitous means of obtaining a conviction at any cost. 

Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick II put heretics to 
death, but Pope Innocent III, while allowing the emperors 
to persecute them, forbade torture. The Spanish Inquisition, 
of which we hear so much, was used by the sovereigns as a 
means of destroying persons they disliked, and the Popes did 
all in their power to check any injustice perpetrated by this 
court (cf. Hefele, Cardinal Ximenes), 

As long as the Waldensians did not rise in rebellion, Pope 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 73 

Innocent III allowed them to hold meetings in Metz and to 
read the Bible. Before the Battle of Cappel, Clement VII in- 
terceded for the Zwinglians, Pius V warned Philip II of Spain 
against shedding blood in the Netherlands, and the so-called 
dragonnades, a form of persecution inflicted upon Protes- 
tants in France, were condemned by Paul III, Francis I, and 
Innocent XI. 

2. Although the CathoUc Church and the Popes in their 
ofl&cial capacity never had recourse to violent persecution of 
non-Catholics and never taught that sanguinary measures 
were permissible, we shall see that from the point of view of 
the rulers in the days when these persecutions took place, the 
means employed were in many cases quite justifiable. Among 
the Catholic nations of the Middle Ages, it was regarded as a 
most serious offence against the civil government for a man 
to fall away from the unity of faith, and consequently this 
offence, like many others, was punishable by death. This 
opinion was held even by the Hohenstaufens and other 
sovereigns notorious for their conflicts with the papacy. In 
many cases the false teachers were bitterly opposed to the 
civil order and incurred punishment on this account. Bol- 
linger, for instance, says that the Cathari and Albigenses 
attacked marriage, family life, and the rights of property, 
and if they had triumphed the people would have lapsed into 
barbarism and pagan immorality. Was it not, therefore, in- 
cumbent upon all well-disposed persons to offer resistance 
and, if necessary, to have recourse to extreme measures in 
order to protect themselves against such a disaster? 

3. An impartial study of history shows that whenever non- 
Catholics wielded the temporal power, they on their part 
treated Catholics with unparalleled severity and displayed 
intense fanaticism against them. We hear much of the suffer- 
ings of the Waldensians; why are the Cathari and Albigenses 
mentioned less frequently? The Waldensians were persecuted 
after they had allied themselves with these sects whose 
repression was a matter of absolute necessity for the state, 
for they went about plundering, killing, and destroying 



74 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

churches, and by their doctrines they undermined the foun- 
dations of both ecclesiastical and civil life. It is most unfair 
to blame Catholicism for the cruelty that unhappily was 
shown in the struggle against them, and it is particularly 
unjust to regard the Popes as responsible for it (cf . Schmidt, 
Histoire des Cathares, etc., 1849). It can be read in Protestant 
books that, as late as 1655, four thousand innocent Walden- 
sians were butchered in Piedmont, whereas the truth is that 
they began to attack and kill their Catholic neighbours, and in 
the fighting that ensued a few hundred, and not four thousand, 
Waldensians were slain. In the Church Times, an Anglican 
newspaper (1890, no. 385, p. 355), the accounts of this battle' 
given by Leger, a Waldensian minister, are denoimced as 
infamous calumnies. 

Persecutions of Catholics 

We hear much of the persecution that Protestants had to 
undergo, but comparatively little of the sufferings of faithful 
Catholics at the hands of Protestants. Luther himself says 
that rulers, princes, and lords, who belong to the canker of the 
Roman Sodom, ought to be assailed with all sorts of weapons, 
imtil men can wash their hands in their blood (Wittenb. ed., 
1,51 and 9, 24 b). Zwingli used to say of all who did not 
agree with him, that the Gospel thirsted for their blood. 
Calvin desired the institution of an "inquisition for the exter- 
mination of the race of heretics"; and between 1542 and 1546 
the town council in Geneva banished seventy-six and put to 
death fifty-eight persons on the ground of their faith, whilst 
between eight and nine hundred others were arrested and 
thrown into prison where new tortures were constantly de- 
vised for them. Even Melanchthon praised Calvin for having 
burnt Serve tus {ep, i8y inter Calvini), 

In England Henry VIII caused thirty thousand people to 
be put to death on account of the Catholic faith. Cobbett, 
a Protestant historian, says of Queen' Elizabeth: "Talk of 
Catholic persecution and cruelty ! Where are you to find per- 
secution and cruelty like this inflicted by CathoUc princes? " 



CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 75 

Within the space of six weeks she caused fifty thousand Cath- 
oHcs to be persecuted merely for the sake of their reHgion, 
and during the last twenty years of her reign no less than 
one hundred and forty-two priests were hanged, drawn, and 
quartered in England, whilst sixty-two prominent Catholic 
laymen also suffered martyrdom. 

The events in France that preceded the horrible massacre 
of St. Bartholomew's night (which was organized solely by 
Queen Catherine) were such as to justify the adoption of 
stringent measures against the Huguenots, and the Church 
by no means recommended or sanctioned such proceedings. 
In the town of Orthoz the Huguenots had mercilessly butch- 
ered three thousand harmless Catholics; at St. Sever they 
had hurled two hundred priests down a precipice; Baron 
des Adrets forced his own children to wash their hands in 
Catholic blood, and Briquemant, one of the leaders of the 
Huguenots, used to wear a necklace made of the ears of 
slaughtered priests. 

It is well known that Catholics were fiercely persecuted 
in the Netherlands, and in the northern kingdoms of Europe 
most severe penalties were inflicted upon them. 

What right then have Protestants to accuse any one else 
of cruel persecutions? Would it not be better to let the sins 
and blunders of the past be forgotten? No one is justified in 
exciting the rabble by representing the Popes as responsible 
for all the bloodshed in past centuries, and as desirous to 
resume their work of butchery. Does any reasonable person 
really believe such statements to be true? Those who make 
them do ill service to the cause of truth, justice, and 
charity. Thousands of good Protestants know that the 
Pope is not the monster of cruelty and falsehood that he is 
painted. As Catholics we feel pain and sorrow at the 
abuse hurled at our Church and her supreme head, but our 
loyalty and love remain unaffected, and neither lies nor cal- 
umnies, neither bloodshed nor violence will make us abandon 
her. 



IV. THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 

Protestants assert that the doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic 
Church regarding the forgiveness of sins are erroneous, inasmuch as 
she maintains that the punishment due to sin is remitted, not solely 
on the ground of Christ's merits but also on that of the superabundant 
merits of the saints and in return for good works performed by the 
sinner. She teaches, moreover, that the Pope claims power to appor- 
tion the merits of Christ and the saints, and thus to remit the punish- 
ment due to sin in this world and to relieve the souls in purgatory. 

The Catholic Reply. The Catholic Church teaches that 
every sin, even the smallest, can be forgiven only through 
the merits of the death of our Lord on the Cross. In bap- 
tism all stain of sin is removed in virtue of these merits, 
but sins committed after baptism are forgiven in the Sacra- 
ment of Penance, again solely in virtue of Christ's merits. 
We read in Holy Scripture, however, that a debt of temporal 
punishment remains to be paid even after our sins are for- 
given (2 Kings xii, 13, etc.). The everlasting punishment is 
remitted through our Saviour's merits, but the sinner himself 
must suffer the temporal pimishment. In consequence of 
the Commimion of Saints the merits of one can be applied 
to another, and the Church does this when she grants an 
indulgence (Matth. xvi, 19). 

The Pope cannot assign the merits of Christ's death to 
whomsoever he will, but only to such who with contrite 
hearts desire to participate in them; and to these, if their 
sins and the everlasting punishment due them have been 
remitted, the Pope can grant remission of the temporal pxm- 
ishment by way of indulgence. 

Indulgences can be applied to the souls in purgatory only 
by way of intercession. "Our good works benefit those 
only who in this life have deserved to be thus benefited" (St. 
Augustine, Enchiridion, cap. no). 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 77 

Protestants who base their doctrine upon Holy Scripture believe 
that sins are forgiven solely through the merits of Christ, for Isaias 
says, "The chastisement of our peace was upon him" (liii, 5), and St. 
John writes, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" 
(i John i, 7). 

The Catholic Reply. This is precisely what the Catholic 
Church teaches with regard to Christ's merits. Luther de- 
nied, however, that any sanctification and renewal of the 
inner man was connected with the forgiveness of sins. 

The Protestant Doctrine regarding the merits of the saints is that all 
require forgiveness and are saved through the blood of the Lamb (Apoc. 
vii, 14). Now people who need to have their own debts paid by another, 
are not able to pay those of others. Hence our Lord said to His disci- 
ples: "You also, when you shall have done all those things that are 
commanded you, say: *We are improfitable servants; we have done 
that which we ought to do'" (Luke xvii, 10). 

The Catholic Reply is that of course all the saints owe their 
salvation to the Blood of Christ, and no one can make satis- 
faction for the sins of another; no Catholic questions these 
facts. But St. Paul wrote: "I rejoice in my sufferings for 
you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the siifferings 
of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which is the Church" 
(Col. i, 24). Hence it is possible for one Christian to suffer 
instead of another, and if his own debts are paid out of an 
unmerited treasure of grace, he may pass on to his poorer 
brethren some of the abundance that he has received. All 
his merit is derived from Christ's merit, just as all the 
properties of the grape are derived from its growth on the 
vine. 

Protestants maintain that according to Catholic doctrine purgatory 
is the place where those who die in faith and charity without, however, 
having attained to perfection, are detained, in order to be cleansed by 
suffering from every sin and to make satisfaction to God's justice for 
every fault for which they have not atoned in this life. This doctrine, 
like that of the superabundant merits of the saints, is the basis upon 
which the theory of indulgences rests, and is used as a means of gain- 
ing power and of extorting money from the deluded creatures who 
beheve it. 



78 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

The Catholic Reply, Our belief in the existence of a place 
of purgation is based upon reason, upon Holy Scripture, and 
the oldest Christian traditions (2 Mach. xii, 40-46). Our 
Lord, too, speaks of sins that shall not be forgiven either in 
this world or in the world to come (Matth. xii, 32). There 
must therefore be sins which can still be forgiven after death. 
That the doctrine regarding purgatory is used as a means of 
gaining money and influence is a malicious and spiteful mis- 
representation of fact. 

Protestants declare that there is nothing about purgatory in Holy 
Scripture, and that this doctrine is opposed to clear statements in the 
Bible such as Apoc. xiv, 13. 

The Catholic Reply. Yet Martin Luther said in his Leip- 
zig disputation that he was certain of the existence of purga- 
tory, and that it behooved men to help the poor souls detained 
there (Wittenberg ed., part 7, f. 7, and 132). We read in the 
Bible that it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for 
the dead, that they may be loosed from sins (2 Mach. xii, 46). 
The fourteenth chapter of the Apocalypse contains a descrip- 
tion of the Church and those who persecute her at the end of 
the world, not at the close of the individual life. On the day 
of judgment all who have died in the Lord will undoubtedly 
rest from their labours. The Catholic doctrine is not at all 
incompatible with Apoc. xiv. 

COMMENTARY 

The Council of Trent excluded from the Catholic Church 
any who should maintain that man could be justified by his 
own works . . . independently of the grace of Jesus Christ 
(sess. 6, can. i). 

We must, therefore, seek elsewhere the difference between 
the Catholic and the Protestant teaching on the subject of 
forgiveness of sins. 

The Catholic Church teaches, in accordance with Holy 
Scripture, that the justification of a sinner can be effected only 
through the merits of Christ. But she teaches further that 



TEE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 79 

by God's grace the sinner really becomes just, being inwardly 
renewed and sanctified, as St. Paul writes to the Corinthians 
(i Cor. vi, 11), ^^ You are washed, you are sanctified, you are 
justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," and to the 
Romans (viii, i), "There is therefore now no condemnation 
to them that are in Christ Jesus" (cf. also Tit. iii, 5). The 
Church tells us that in each baptized Christian a new life 
begins in which, by cooperation with grace, he can lay up a 
treasure in heaven (Matth. xix, 21). Nothing displeasing to 
God remains after baptism, for concupiscence is not sin but a 
consequence of sin; sometimes indeed it is called sin, but it 
is so only in the sense that it is a result of and incentive to sin. 
Whoever retains his baptismal innocence needs no indul- 
gences and has no purgatory to undergo. 

Indulgences affect the temporal punishment imposed by 
God after the sins committed by a baptized person have 
been forgiven (2 Kings xii, 13, 14). The Catholic Church 
declares that Christ bestowed upon her the power (Matth. 
xvi, 19) to release men from these penalties, but when she 
uses this power she again does nothing but to apply the 
merits of Christ to penitent sinners whose offences have al- 
ready been pardoned by God, as St. Paul writes, "What I 
have pardoned ... for your sakes have I done it in the 
person of Christ" (2 Cor. ii, 10). 

When Catholics speak of the superabundant merits of the 
saints, in virtue whereof we can obtain remission of punish- 
ment due to our sins, they have no intention of setting these 
merits at all on a level with our Lord's, for those of the saints 
are only real and efficacious inasmuch as Christ Himself lived 
and worked in them (cf . Col. i, 24) . When rightly understood, 
this teaching of the Church, which after all is not a dogma of 
faith, is far from underrating our Lord's merits and is based 
upon the living union between the Church and Christ who is 
her Head, 

Luther and his followers departed from the doctrine taught 
in all the previous centuries, and maintained that baptism 
and regeneration do not really remove the natural sinfulness 



8o THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

of man, who continues to be a sinner steeped in wickedness 
and damnable in God's sight. The righteousness of Christ is 
merely imputed to him, he is declared just, without in reality 
being so, and his sins are covered up, not removed. This 
doctrine is manifestly opposed to Holy Scripture (Rom. 
viii, i). We may say that Protestantism promises to every 
one the most perfect plenary indulgence, since it is only 
necessary for a sinner to believe that merits not his own are 
imputed to him, so that they cover up his sins and uncon- 
ditionally deliver him from all the consequences of sin in time 
and in eternity. There is no idea of the duty or possibility 
of his rendering himself worthy to receive such a boon. 

Sin 

Protestants maintain that they take a much more serious view than 
Catholics do of the corruption of the human heart, since they do not 
believe its natural sinfulness to be removed by baptism, and think 
that the warfare between the flesh and the spirit goes on incessantly, 
whilst even the regenerate crucify their lusts and concupiscences (Gal. 
V, 16-24). According to Catholic teaching, the Apostles term lust 
"sin'' merely because it is the outcome of sin and disposes men to sin, 
whereas Protestants do not presimie to declare anything not to be sin 
to which the Bible gives this name. 

Thus Protestants claim to take a more serious view than 
we do of the corruption of the human heart ! We need not dis- 
cuss this point, but let us rather consider whether the Protes- 
tant doctrines regarding sin and redemption are more true, 
more in harmony with the word of God, and more sure to lead 
men to their eternal goal than are the doctrines of the Catholic 
Church. We shall soon discover that this is not the case. 

The first fundamental mistake made by Protestantism is 
to ignore completely the moral nature of man. If the Protes- 
tant teaching were well estabUshed, it would deprive man of 
every reasonable disposition to recognize God as his own 
final end, and of all free will either to resist or cooperate with 
God's grace. Thus Luther says: "All that we do, is done not 
of our own free will, but of necessity" {de serv. arb. Opp, lat., 
iii, f. 177); ''We must do everything as God wills us to do 



) 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 8i 

it, and our free will does nothing, since it is non-existent'' 
(Witt, ed., 6, p. 460). Melanchthon enlarges upon this theory 
and writes: "God does everything, good and bad; He was the 
author of the treachery of Judas as well as of the conversion 
of Paul" (Ep. ad Rom,, cap. 8., 1522 ed.). The Reformers 
held that man's whole nature was sin and nothing else. The 
justice of Christ was imputed to him only outwardly, but on 
this account man was no longer held guilty of sin. This doc- 
trine may have originated in a profound sense of human 
sinfulness but it is one-sided and exaggerated. It denies the 
capability of man to improve and to become really just and 
the friend of God, although this is indeed possible only through 
Christ's merits. It is likely to encourage him to sin and to 
abandon all efforts to lead a moral life; in fact Luther him- 
self used to say, " Sin stoutly , but believe yet more stoutly." 
Some Protestants have seen that this theory of the persistence 
of natural sinfulness even in the just is a gross exaggeration, 
and this has led them to deny that human nature is corrupt 
at all and to reject the doctrine of original sin. 

The Catholic Church falls into neither extreme. She takes 
a most serious view of all sin, — of the sins committed by the 
angels and by Adam as well as of the personal sins of men; 
nor does she overlook the terrible consequences of sin, in- 
cluding those of original sin. She certainly does not view sin 
lightly nor our struggles against it. No one can listen to the 
instructions given at missions and retreats without being 
aware of this fact. Nor does the Church make forgiveness 
so simple and easy a matter as it would be if she merely said, 
''Believe that Christ's merits are imputed to you, and then 
all the evil results of your sin will be removed and you will 
no longer be held guilty of it." No, she requires of us serious 
and voluntary cooperation with God's grace, real conversion, 
abandonment of sin, and the conquest of our inclination to 
sin. She perceives the full maUce and force of sin, but she 
does not fail to see the magnitude and power of God's grace. 
''Where sin abounded, grace did more abound" (Rom. v, 
20). She does not think lightly of sin, but she recognizes the 



82 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

omnipotence of divine grace. She believes that when Christ 
said to a leper, ^^Be thou cleansed/' the man was really 
cured of his disease; and, in the same way, that when He 
says to a sinner, ^^Thy sins are forgiven thee,'' the sins are as 
completely removed as the leprosy was in the former in- 
stance. St. John baptized with water, Christ baptizes with 
fire and the Holy Spirit, and this baptism is the beginning of 
a new life, the resurrection from spiritual death. Nothing 
worthy of condemnation is left in those who are in Christ 
Jesus, for the Spirit bestows life in Him and delivers them 
from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii, 1,2). The Church 
regards one who is justified as really risen with Christ and, 
being thus imited with Christ, as able to perform good works 
acceptable in God's sight. 

Having been taught by her divine Founder the true nature 
of sin, the Church does not presume to give this name to con- 
cupiscence which continues to exist even in baptized per- 
sons and is not really sin. It is true that St. Paul calls it sin 
in Rom. vii, but here, as in many other passages of Holy 
Scripture, it behooves us not to take the words too literally 
but to study St. Paul's teaching as a whole. In this chapter 
the Apostle depicts the unhappy state of an unbaptized per- 
son who is still contaminated with original sin, and in the 
next he extols the grace of Christ that can awaken such a 
person to a new life in which nothing is left worthy of condem- 
nation, since sin is slain and the man becomes a child of God 
and an heir to heaven. In none of St. Paul's epistles is there 
any suggestion of a natural sinfulness remaining as actual sin 
in those who are justified, and although he speaks of concupis- 
cence as sin, Catholics have never felt any doubt as to his 
meaning. St. James (i, 15) states the relation between con- 
cupiscence and sin quite plainly where he says, ^^When con- 
cupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin." Midway 
between evil desires and sin stands man's free will; he can 
yield to or resist the temptation; if he yields, sin results, but 
God simmions every one to resist. St. Augustine points out 
that St. James distinguishes concupiscence and sin as being 



TEE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 83 

mother and daughter (adv. Jul., 1. 6, c. 15, n. 47) and remarks 
that concupiscence is called sin because it is a sin to yield to it 
{de perf.just,, n. 44). In the same way St. Paul says of one 
who receives the Lord's Body unworthily that he '^eateth 
and drinketh judgment to himself/' He does not mean that 
Holy Communion is actually judgment or condemnation, 
but he speaks of it thus, because it brings condemnation upon 
an unworthy communicant. So he calls concupiscence sin, 
because whoever does not resist it, sins. The Council of 
Trent declared with perfect truth (sess. 5, cap. 5) that the 
Catholic Church had never understood this passage to mean 
that concupiscence was actually a sin in the regenerate, but 
only that concupiscence was called sin because it was the 
outcome of sin and disposed a man to commit actual sin. 

The Council of Trent recognized most fully that the war- 
fare between the flesh and the spirit is unending, — no Cath- 
olic would deny it; but warfare is not sin; it involves the 
possibility of defeat, but also the possibility and hope of vic- 
tory. He who succumbs to the dominion of sin, ceases to 
fight. 

What would Luther say to the assertion that the regener- 
ate crucify their lusts and concupiscences? He wrote: '' Why 
should we torment ourselves with the attempt to make people 
good? Why should we trouble to keep the ten command- 
ments, as they are unprofitable for salvation?" {Table Talk, 
Aurif., f. 178) and again: ^^Only fools struggle to resist con- 
cupiscence with prayer, fasting, and other mortifications, for 
it is easy enough to get rid of temptations'' (viz., by yielding 
to them). Luther's own words are significant, "provided 
women and girls are to be had" (Works, Jena, H, 216 b). 
The Catholic Church is in earnest when she insists upon cruci- 
fying the flesh; this doctrine has gained her much opposi- 
tion, and many, thinking it too hard, have forsaken her in 
consequence. Yet the saints in the Catholic Church have 
always been conspicuous for their heroism in crucifying their 
lusts. 



84 TBE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

The Catholic View of Sin 

Another assertion made by Protestants is that the Roman Catholic 
Church, and the Jesuit moral in particular, tends to minimize offences 
which even a Turk or a pagan would regard as sins. They say that the 
Pope sanctions the publication of books in which we read that excuses 
can be made for murder, adultery, immorality, fraud, and perjury. 

We should be inclined to take the opposite view and to say 
that in the eyes of Protestants calumny is no sin provided it 
is directed against Catholics and especially against the Jesuits. 
'^ There is something repellent," said a non-Catholic in the 
News- Advertiser, Vancouver, B. C, ^^in the way in which 
some ministers discuss the Roman Catholic Church. . . . 
The rancor exhibited by certain clerics toward what they 
are pleased to term ^Rome and all her works,' would be amus- 
ing if it were not so thoroughly malicious. I do not believe 
the Jews to be more bitterly persecuted than the Church of 
Rome. Persons go out of their way to abuse the Pope, and 
the charming reverence given to Christ's Mother and to the 
saints. It is a Church with many beautiful teachings, and 
I do not find its ministers railing at other religious institu- 
tions. Why, if religion be Christian, should some minister 
. . . mount to his pulpit to abuse his brother? It is illogical. 
And it wakes in every free, just mind a desire to see fair play 
— to speak the free word, to view with wide eyes the great 
sad, heaving world which contains so much suffering and so 
much love, and in which forever the generous and weary 
figure of the Christ hangs suspended 'twixt earth and 
heaven." 

It is an outrageous calumny to say that either the Catholic 
Church as a whole or any influential party in the Church 
teaches that such sins are permissible or even excusable. 

Protestants need only refer to any Catholic Catechism and 
to any explanation of the same, or to The Perfect Christian by 
St. Alphonsus, who is so often falsely represented as palliat- 
ing vice, to see how Catholic children and Catholics in general 
are taught to feel hatred and abhorrence of all, even trifling, 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 85 

sins. It is impossible to find a single Catholic book of in- 
struction or a single Catholic priest or catechist in the 
whole world who would venture to say that, under any cir- 
cumstances whatever, murder, adultery, and perjury were 
only venial sins or not sins at all. The Jesuits, in harmony 
with the whole Church, teach that hatred, enmity, envy, un- 
charitableness, and voluntary indulgence in impure thoughts 
and desires are undoubtedly sinful, and that whosoever 
looks on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed 
adultery with her in his heart (Matth. v, 28), as our 
Lord taught. How then is it possible that the same persons 
should paUiate or permit actions resulting from these evil 
thoughts? 

What are we to say regarding the alleged books, sanctioned 
by the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities, said to contain 
such abominable doctrines, inducing Catholics to regard as 
excusable some offences which even Turks and pagans know 
to be sins? 

It is unhappily true that such books exist, and they poison 
the minds of thousands who cease to consider as sin that 
which is really sinful and leads to destruction. But these 
books are not used in the instruction of Catholic children, nor 
are they employed by Catholic confessors as a guide in the 
proper discharge of their judicial functions, nor, forsooth, are 
they published with the sanction of the Pope and the eccle- 
siastical authorities. The Catholic Church is often criticized 
for her hostility towards this kind of infidel literature, but 
the books to which Protestants refer are those written on the 
Catholic moral code for the instruction of confessors. 

With regard to these books, inasmuch as they really contain 
Catholic doctrine, we may say they are in accordance with 
the principles of evangelical morality, and are written, not 
in order to lead the innocent astray, but in order to aid con- 
fessors in saving souls and in guarding them from sin. The 
writers have no intention of palliating any sin whatever, 
but of showing confessors how to judge of the magnitude of 
sins according to the principles of reason and the divine law. 



86 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

To a confessor, books of this kind are as useful and neces- 
sary as textbooks of medicine are to a physician or books on 
law to a judge. One of these books, written by Father Gury, 
a Jesuit, has been described by Protestants as full of re- 
volting doctrines, an abyss of filth and coarseness; but Georg 
Evers, a convert, formerly a Protestant minister, says of this 
work: '^For the sake of gaining information, I read the 
chapter on the Sixth Commandment in Gury's book. What 
I found stated (in Latin), for priests dealing with diflScult 
cases, stands in the same relation to Luther's disgusting ob- 
scenities as the advice given by a good, moral physician to 
the impure conversation of wantons." 

It is a most complete distortion of the true facts to say 
that the Church of Rome under Jesuit influence teaches sin 
to be excusable, whereas Protestantism views it much more 
seriously. On the contrary, the Catholic Church, including 
the Jesuits, recognizes the full malice of sin as being a volun- 
tary and infinite wrong committed against God. The Cath- 
olic Church makes light of no sin, and she teaches that the 
only sure way of overcoming it is to be pure and honest even 
in small matters; she cherishes virtue such as the world 
does not know, and she leads the elect on to the highest 
point of sanctity. 

The Forgiveness of Sin 

Protestants acknowledge that the so-called Tridentine decree con- 
tains much that is true regarding the forgiveness of sins, but they as- 
cribe this fact to the presence at the Council of many honest men who, 
they imagine, were really evangelicals at heart. They maintain that 
the decisions on this article of faith were expressed in ambiguous lan- 
guage owing to the presence of some who held other opinions. Neverthe- 
less the Coimcil of Trent teaches that sins are only partially removed by 
the merits of Christ, and partially by those of the saints and by the sat- 
isfaction made by the sinner himself; such a doctrine being, according 
to the Protestant view, opposed to Holy Scripture (Ps. xlix (xlviii), 8, 9; 
Ephes. ii, 8, 9). 

What extraordinary ideas on the subject of Catholicism 
possess the minds of those who are not of our faith! The 



TEE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 87 

Council of Trent was convoked chiefly in order to put an end 
to various abuses in the Church, and to defend the ancient 
truths of Cathohcism against modern assailants, most of 
whom were followers of Luther. Yet these Protestants im- 
agine that many persons present at the Council were really 
evangelical at heart. If by evangelical they mean believers 
in the Gospel of Christ, then not only many but all of the 
learned men assembled at Trent were genuinely evangelical, 
as are the Pope and all good Catholics, including the Jesuits, 
at the present day. But not a single one of them was a 
Protestant; they all unanimously held the old Catholic faith 
based on Scripture and tradition. If one point in this faith 
finds favour with a Protestant, who fails to discover in it 
any of the horrible misrepresentations which he has from 
childhood associated with Catholicism, he at once assumes 
that it is not Catholic doctrine at all but a fragment of Protes- 
tantism. It would be m.ore correct to take a contrary view. 
Protestants often retain more of the Catholic truth than they 
themselves are aware of, and on many points hold thoroughly 
Catholic opinions. All that is good, noble, pure, and holy 
in the teaching of the Reformers, was carried with them 
when they forsook the Catholic Church, their early home. 

There is no ambiguity in the decisions of the Council of 
Trent; they contain the true doctrine, stated clearly in all 
its aspects and bearings. They plainly ascribe all the merit 
in the forgiveness of sins to Jesus Christ, our Mediator and 
Redeemer, but they do not deny that a sinner possesses free 
will whereby he can cooperate in the work of his salvation. 

There is an inexplicable confusion in the minds of Protes- 
tants between the guilt of sin and the punishment due to it. 
The Council of Trent declared it to be the Catholic belief that 
no human merit suffices to release a sinner from even a slight 
sin. Great care was taken not to suggest in any way a failure 
to appreciate the importance of Christ's satisfaction or to 
diminish and limit its eJQBicacy. Yet no sinner can share in this 
satisfaction unless he himself cooperate with it. There is clear 
evidence in Holy Scripture that the temporal punishment 



88 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

due to sin may remain after the sin itself is forgiven (e.g., 
2 Kings xii, 13). The Church formerly imposed very severe 
penances upon sinners and, like St. John the Baptist, 
required them to bring forth fruit worthy of penance, yet 
this satisfaction derived all its value from Christ, since we are 
unable to do anything of ourselves, although we can do all 
things in Christ who strengtheneth us (2 Cor. iii, 5; Phil. iv. 
13). In Christ we live, and in Him we merit, and if we suffer 
with Him, we shall be also glorified with Him (Rom. viii, 17). 
How can Protestants boast that the regenerate amongst 
them crucify their lusts and passions, and at the same time 
reproach the Catholic Church for ascribing some value and 
importance to our suffering in union with the atonement 
made by Jesus Christ? 

It is a misrepresentation to assert that Catholics believe 
the merits of Christ to sufl&ce only partially for the removal 
of sins, so that the merits of the saints and the satisfaction 
made by the sinner himself are required in addition. The 
Council of Trent declared that all our glory is in Christ, in 
whom we bring forth fruit worthy of penance, which derives 
all its efficacy from Him, and through Him is offered to and 
accepted by our heavenly Father. The merits of the saints 
are not mentioned at all in connection with personal penance, 
and we are far from supposing that they are needed to aug- 
ment those of Christ. We read, however, in Holy Scripture 
that God would have spared Sodom at Abraham's interces- 
sion, had there been ten just men in the city. 

Finally, when Protestants say that Catholic doctrine is 
manifestly contrary to Holy Scripture, and refer to two pas- 
sages in support of their assertion, we may reply that in 
Ephes. ii, 8, 9 St. Paul's meaning is: Jesus alone is our Re- 
deemer, His grace alone saved us without our previously 
meriting anything. No Catholic denies this, but the words 
contain no reference at all to the value of penitential works 
performed by a sinner who falls into sin after baptism and by 
God's grace repents and is converted. The Protestant trans- 
lation of Ps. xlix (xlviii), 8 is, "None of them can by any 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 89 

means redeem his brother." The reference is to redemption 
from sin, but the context of the Psahn shows that the author 
was speaking of death. 

Indulgences 

' Protestants believe that the Popes claim to have received power 
from Christ to remit the temporal punishment required by divine jus- 
tice, by drawing on the treasury of the Church, i.e., on the supera- 
bimdant merits of Christ and the saints. They can also by the same 
means afford alleviation and release to the souls in purgatory through 
the mediation of the Uving. A papal indulgence is, according to Protes- 
tants, the remission of so many days' or years' detention in purgatory; 
sometimes part of the guilt is remitted, but at other times the Pope 
forgives all sins indiscriminately. Sometimes the living enjoy the 
benefits of an indulgence, but more frequently they obtain these bene- 
fits for the dead, and the latter kind of indulgence is the most important 
and most highly prized. 

It is true that the Popes, acting as the vicars of Christ, 
claim to have authority to remit the temporal punishment 
due to sin, but their claim is based upon our Lord's words to 
St. Peter: ^^ Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be 
loosed also in heaven" (Matth. xvi, 19). These words refer 
to all that can hinder the soul's entrance to heaven, and there- 
fore include temporal punishment. The history of Moses 
and of David shows that such punishment is imposed by God 
even when the sin is forgiven. All the Fathers of the Church, 
as even Calvin admits, imanimously declare that a forgiven 
sinner still has to make satisfaction. In the ordinary course 
of things the sinner has to endure his punishment, but it may 
be remitted as a special favour. Every child knows this 
who, by displaying greater love and more perfect obedience, 
tries to please its parents and prevent them from inflicting 
punishment. Every criminal knows that the sovereign can 
use his right to pardon and commute, diminish or quash the 
sentence pronounced against him. Hence it is surely not 
surprising that the supreme head of the Church should claim 
a similar privilege. In the Sacraments of Baptism and Pen- 
ance he has full authority to release a sinner from the eternal 



90 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

punishment due to sin; he acts in the name of Jesus Christ, 
and applies the merits of Christ to every sinner who does 
what is required of him; why then should not the Pope be 
able to remit less severe penalties? Protestants assume that 
they can avail themselves of all the merits of Christ, and that 
they are free from all guilt and punishment if they only be- 
lieve the justice of Christ to be imputed to them. Thus they 
really grant the most complete plenary indulgence to them- 
selves unconditionally, whereas a Catholic, although he re- 
lies equally upon the merits of Christ, expects them to be 
conferred upon him only in the manner prescribed by our 
Lord HimseK. 

Protestants are apt entirely to overlook the fact that in- 
dulgences are granted under quite definite conditions. They 
seem to fancy that the Pope bestows them just as he likes, 
although he is bound to act in this, as in other matters, only 
as Christ's representative and in accordance with His will. 
All Catholic theologians are agreed in thinking that it is not 
permissible to grant indulgences without sufl&cient reason, 
and they would be invalid should a Pope attempt to grant 
them thus. Indulgences of a thousand years are, as Benedict 
XIV declared, probably not genuine. Another point over- 
looked by Protestants is that any one anxious to gain an in- 
dulgence must faithfully comply with certain conditions, the 
first being invariably that he must be in the state of grace. 
If the pimishment due to his sins is to be remitted, those sins 
must previously be removed by means of true contrition or, 
in the case of grievous sins, by means of the Sacrament of 
Penance. No indulgence renders superfluous contrition, pen- 
ance, and true purpose of amendment; the fact that the 
punishment is diminished or remitted ought to stimulate the 
sinner to make fresh efforts to overcome his faults. The 
prescribed good works have to be faithfully performed, and 
the chief of these is prayer for the welfare of Holy Church. 
Finally, as Tetzel, the much calumniated preacher of indul- 
gences, said, ''the people ought constantly to be reminded 
that God saves us, not for the good works that we do, but in 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 91 

His own most holy compassion'' (Janssen, An meine Kritiker, 
14), and that ''no one deserves an indulgence, although he 
may be truly penitent and in charity with God, and who- 
ever does good works for love of God, directs them towards 
God in his life." 

It is an outrageous falsehood to say that the Pope some- 
times remits part of the guilt of sin, and at other times remits 
the sins altogether. Let me repeat again most emphatically 
that the Pope, when he grants an indulgence, has no intention 
of forgiving any sin either partially or completely. 

Purgatory 

Protestants say that of all indulgences those applicable to the souls 
in purgatory are the most important and most highly prized. They 
declare that the Catholic doctrine regarding purgatory is an insult to 
Jesus Christ, who has made atonement for our sins, and that those who 
beHeve souls to be purified by the tortures of purgatory forget that 
amendment is not the necessary result of suffering. 

Is it not a fact that many Protestants pray for the dead and 
that even in funeral orations they refer to faults not wholly 
eradicated during life? Is this not a proof of the persistence 
of the old Catholic feeling with regard to the departed? We 
trust that they are too good for hell, but perhaps they are 
not yet fit for heaven whither nothing unclean can gain ad- 
mission. If they are still unable to enjoy the beatific vision, 
ought death to be a barrier to the charity that never faileth? 
St. Paul hoped to be delivered from captivity by the prayers 
of the faithful (Philemon 22), and prayed that the Lord would 
grant unto Onesimus ''to find mercy in that day" (2 Tim. 
i, 18), and in the same way every Christian hopes by his 
prayers to help those dear to him even after their earthly life 
is over. At first Luther did not deny the existence of purga- 
tory, and believed that the departed could benefit by the 
prayers of their survivors, but subsequently his other doc- 
trines forced him to oppose the constant faith of the Church, 
based though it is on both the Old and the New Testament, 
and he finally taught that there was no purgatory. St. Au- 



92 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

gustine, referring to Matth. xii, 32, says, "there is forgiveness 
of sins also in the next life," and, "The prayer of the righteous 
is heard in aid of those Christians who have departed from 
this life, and are not so wicked as to be condemned, nor so 
good as to be able immediately to enter heaven" (de civ, Dei, 
1. 21, c. 24). 

What can be said in answer to the statement that faith in 
purgatory is an insult to Jesus Christ? A sinner insults 
Christ by his evil works, and it is precisely on this account 
that he suffers the punishment which he deserves, that God 
may be glorified and receive the honour due to Him. 

Jeremy Taylor, the famous Protestant Bishop, author of 
Holy Living and Holy Dying, and incidentally an inveterate 
opponent of many of our cherished doctrines, on the subject 
of prayers for the dead admitted a complete acceptance: 

"It is very considerable, that since our blessed Saviour did 
reprove all the evil doctrines and traditions of the scribes 
and Pharisees, and did argue concerning the dead and the 
resurrection against the Sadducees, yet He spake no word 
against this public practice of intercession, but left it as He 
found it; which He who came to declare to us all the will of 
His Father would not have done if it had not been innocent, 
pious, and full of charity" {Selections from Theology, Section 
XX). Elsewhere he says: "The dead people, even to the 
day of judgment, are the subject of a misery, the object of 
God's mercy, and therefore fit to be commemorated in the 
duties of our piety and charity. ... It being certain that 
they have a need of mercy, and it being uncertain how great 
their need is, it may concern the prudence of charity, to be 
the more earnest, as not knowing the greatness of their 
necessity" (Ibid.). 

Again, we are charged with forgetting that amendment is 
not a necessary result of suffering. The flames of hell are not 
intended to effect amendment but to pimish, and the pains 
of purgatory are also punitive. No amount of punishment 
improves one who is hardened in vice, yet we do not on that 
accoimt close our prisons, and a loving child who thought- 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 93 

lessly or recklessly has offended its parents may certainly be 
improved by punishment. The penance which a sinner, con- 
scious of his guilt, accepts without hesitation, really purges 
and cleanses him. We see here the difference between hell 
and purgatory. 

WiUiam Mallock writes: "As to this doctrine of Purga- 
tory — which has so long been a stumbling block to the 
whole Protestant world — time goes on, and the view men 
take of it is changing. It is becoming fast recognized on all 
sides that it is the only doctrine that can bring a belief in future 
rewards and punishments into anything like accordance with 
our notions of what is just and reasonable. So far from its 
being a superfluous superstition, it is seen to be just what is 
demanded at once by reason and morality, and a belief in it 
to be not only an intellectual assent, but a partial harmoniz- 
ing of the whole moral ideal" {Is Life Worth Living? Chap. 
XI). 

Indulgences Applied to Souls in Purgatory 

Protestants tell us that the sufferings of purgatory are described as 
excruciating, but nevertheless the Popes make it quite easy for people 
in this world to deliver their relatives and friends from this place of tor- 
ment by means of innumerable indulgences. 

The Popes have denned nothing with regard to the alleged 
excruciating sufferings of purgatory, and we do not know of 
what they consist; though the common sense of Christians 
certainly suggests that to a soul who loves God and aspires 
to Him as her highest good, it must be intense pain to be held 
back from Him by the consequences of her own folly and sin. 

Power to grant indulgences was given to the papacy by its 
Founder, and the possibility of applying them by way of inter- 
cession to the souls in purgatory is in harmony with the uni- 
versal belief of Christians in the Communion of Saints and 
in the value of intercessory prayer. The members of the 
primitive Church were firmly convinced that ^'the continual 
prayer of a just man availeth much" (James v, i6). 

Whether or no the Popes have made it very easy to release 



94 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

souls from purgatory is another question. It is not for us to 
decide whether God is really willing to accept our good works 
when they are the outcome of our faith and charity, nor do 
we know how far He does so in each individual case, nor 
whether He applies them to the souls in purgatory. Condi- 
tions must be fulfilled, both on our side and on that of the 
departed, if it is to be possible. The Catholic Church does 
not represent it as an easy matter to gain a plenary indulgence 
for oneself. It requires absolute freedom from even venial 
sin and from all attachment to sin, and in the same way the 
soul, to whom we intend to apply an indulgence, must be in 
a fit state to receive this benefit. 

We are assured that when we pray with confidence our 
prayer is not in vain, and we know that in the third century 
St. Perpetua, being in prison, prayed for her dead brother, 
for she wrote, ^^I trusted that my prayers would alleviate his 
torments" (cf. Cap. 7 of her Acts, in which she relates how 
her brother appeared to her, thus confirming her belief that 
he had really been released through her intercession). 

These alleged false doctrines of the Catholic Church are, according 
to Protestants, what induced Luther to come to the rescue of poor de- 
luded people, sunk in superstition or vice, and to publish his ninety-five 
theses, in which he declares faith and repentance to be the way of 
forgiveness. 

This is a mistake; it was not the Catholic doctrine regard- 
ing indulgences that aroused Luther's indignation, but the 
caricature of this doctrine as generally drawn by non-Cath- 
olics. Does not the seventy-first of Luther's theses contain 
the clear statement: ^Xet him who speaks against the truth 
of the papal indulgence be cursed and condemned"? Did not 
Luther himself assure Tetzel during his illness that the strife 
had not begun about him, but was "a child of quite different 
parentage"? (de Wette, I, 336.) 

Nor was Luther incited to his rebellion by the abuses con- 
nected with preaching the indulgences. We Catholics are 
quite aware that there were abuses, and that misunderstand- 



TBE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 95 

ings of the nature of indulgences prevailed, and the Popes 
had recognized these facts and taken measures to check the 
evil. If Luther had really protested against abuses and mis- 
understandings, he would have a claim upon our gratitude. 
But the truth is that he only used these things as a welcome 
excuse for inveighing against the Holy See and its authority, 
and for openly proclaiming his own erroneous opinions on 
the subject of justification by faith alone. In order to rep- 
resent Luther as coming to the rescue of poor misguided 
souls, Protestants assume that the Catholic doctrine regard- 
ing indulgences had plunged the people into superstition and 
vice, but such was by no means the case. Tetzel gave in- 
structions to those who were preaching the indulgence, that 
they must impress upon the faithful the fact that every indul- 
gence is granted primarily for the glory of God, and that no 
one can gain an indulgence who is not truly penitent and 
filled with love of God, and he went on to say: "The indul- 
gence is gained by such as are in a state of true contrition and 
charity, which do not suffer them to remain idle and inactive, 
But spur them on to serve God." "It is certain that the in- 
dulgence is gained by Christian, God-fearing, and pious 
people and not by the indolent and reckless'' (Janssen, An 
meine Kritiker, 14). 

Cardinal Wiseman was in Rome on the occasion of a com- 
paratively recent proclamation of an indulgence, and in 
writing to some friends he expressed the wish that they 
could have seen the crowds outside the confessionals and the 
innumerable communicants at the altars. Stolen property 
was, he said, returned, and hardened sinners were converted. 
He thought that his correspondents, had they witnessed all 
this, could have judged for themselves whether or no the 
proclamation of an indulgence really encouraged men to com- 
mit sins with impimity. 

The Protestant Plenary Indulgence 

It is, I repeat, absolutely false to say that the proclama- 
tion of an indulgence ever plunged unhappy souls into vice 



96 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

or impiety, yet such a statement is frequently made for the 
purpose of keeping alive the prejudices against Catholicism. 
History proves that the people were misled and plunged into 
vice by a preaching of quite another kind, viz., by the ser- 
mons of Luther himself and his followers. He did indeed pro- 
claim a plenary indulgence, when he taught that a man need 
only have faith in order to go straight to heaven, neither con- 
trition nor good works being required of him. Such an indul- 
gence as this could not, of course, be applied to the departed, 
as it rendered purgatory altogether unnecessary. Luther soon 
discovered the effect that this teaching had upon the people, 
and complained bitterly of it. "We live," he wrote towards 
the close of his life, "in Sodom and Babylon, and among all 
classes lawlessness, together with all kinds of vice, sins, and 
scandals, is now much greater than ever before." "Who 
would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand 
that so much misery and wickedness would result from it? " 
(Janssen, op. cit., 33.) Bohmer, a Protestant writer, called 
the Reformation the source of all the evils from which we now 
suffer. Droysen, an antagonist of the Catholic Church, 
makes the following confession: "Through the ecclesiastical 
revolution there arose fearful disorders and confusion; the 
writings of the Reformers abound in pitiful lamentations over 
the growth of wickedness, usury, licentiousness, and every 
kind of sin" (op. cit.). No one could read carefully all the 
evidence on this subject that Janssen has collected, without 
arriving at an opinion different from that usually held by 
Protestants on the subject of the results of Catholic and 
Lutheran teaching respectively. Lutheranism requires a be- 
liever to feel absolute certainty of salvation; Catholicism 
teaches that no one in this world can possess complete assur- 
ance that he is saved, but that all ought to work out their 
salvation with fear and trembling, as St. Paul says: "I am 
not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby 
justified, but He that judgeth me is the Lord" (i Cor. iv, 4). 

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject of in- 
dulgences leads neither to despondency nor to carelessness, 



THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 97 

but it encourages a spirit of penance and so brings men to 
Christ. No Catholic ever expects to secure his salvation by 
means of indulgences. He may never have tried to gain one 
and yet be saved, for an indulgence is a benefit, a favour, the 
remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, but it is 
nothing more. A good Catholic no doubt values indulgences 
for what they are worth, but both in life and in death he re- 
lies solely upon God and his holy faith. 

If there were no judicial authority in the Church, and if 
the utterances of her supreme ruler had no value in the sight 
of God, why should Christ have spoken of power to bind and 
to loose, and of feeding His sheep? We know well enough 
that papal bulls condemn no one, that God alone will be the 
judge of our souls, yet at the same time we trust that He had 
some good purpose in committing us, during our life on earth, 
to the charge of those to whom He said, ^^He that heareth 
you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me." 
Supposing our own conscience should urge us to adopt Lu- 
ther's tenets, is it not possible that God might judge us other- 
wise than we should judge ourselves? Every Catholic knows 
who it is that has atoned for his sins and saved him from 
eternal damnation; he relies upon Christ alone, not on any 
indulgence, nor on the merits of any saint, nor upon any sat- 
isfaction that he himself can make. He knows, however, that 
he will not be taken to heaven as if he were an inanimate clod 
with no will of its own, and he recognizes purgatory as cre- 
ated by God, in His justice and love, in order that men may 
be saved. Purgatory was not invented by one of the Popes, 
but was designed by Him who cannot endure that anything 
unclean should enter heaven, and yet will not extinguish the 
smoking flax. Every Catholic believes that charity does not 
end at death. He is far from supposing that he is free to sin 
lustily, if only he has plenty of faith and gets plenty of indul- 
gences or induces others to gain them for him. He knows to 
whom he is answerable, and he has been taught as a child to say, 
whenever he hears Holy Mass : '' My Jesus, I will live for Thee ; 
my Jesus, I will die for Thee; living and dying I am Thine." 



V. FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 

Protestants assert that, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, faith 
is nothing more than a belief in the revelations and promises of God. 

The Catholic Reply. The Catholic Church teaches that 
there is such a thing as dead faith, which excludes hope and 
charity, and even the devils possess this faith (James ii, 19), 
but it does not sufl&ce for salvation. Justifying faith must 
include heartfelt confidence in God and the charity whence 
contrition and purpose of amendment proceed. 

The Protestant Doctrme is that faith is not merely a belief in God's 
revelations and promises, but is at the same time a heartfelt confidence 
that God in His mercy, for the sake of Christ's merits, will deign to 
have compassion upon us and make us just and blessed, as St. Paul 
says, "With the heart we believe unto justice" (Rom. x, 10). True faith 
worketh by charity (Gal. v, 6), and is fruitful in good works (James 
ii, 18). 

The Catholic Reply, This is not Luther's doctrine, for he 
taught that salvation was by faith alone, i.e., by the confi- 
dence felt by the sinner that God had forgiven him. Luther 
insisted upon excluding charity and good works from faith. 
The statement given above is the Catholic definition of faith, 
the only difference being that the Catholic Church does not, 
like Luther, ascribe to faith power to justify and save. 

Protestants maintain that the Roman Church teaches that by means 
of good works we can make satisfaction for our sins, thus ensuring their 
forgiveness and our salvation. 

The Catholic Reply, Such a doctrine is altogether contrary 
to the Council of Trent, which condemned all who taught 
that man could be justified by his own works without 
divine grace (sess. 6, can. i). The Catholic Church insists 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 99 

that man cannot be saved by faith alone, i.e., by dead faith, 
but she insists also that he cannot be saved by works alone, 
although good works are expedient, necessary, and meritori- 
ous. The necessity and meritorious character of good works 
is taught on almost every pa^e of Holy Scripture, but espe- 
cially in Matth. xxv and James ii. 

Protestants believe that a man in the state of grace may perform really 
good works without being able to atone for his sins and deserve salva- 
tion, for St. Paul says: "By grace you are saved through faith, and 
that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God, not of works, that no 
man may glory" (Ephes. ii, 8, 9). 

The Catholic Reply, On the last day our Judge will admit 
to heaven those who have done good works, and exclude those 
who have neglected to do them (Matth. xxv). Hence the 
saints will owe their salvation to their own works conjointly 
with our Saviour's grace. St. Paul's words in Ephes. ii refer 
plainly to works performed by Christians before their con- 
version, hence these works could not be the outcome of faith. 

Protestants assert that Catholics extol, as good works, almsgiving, 
fasting, saying the rosary, going on pilgrimages, visiting certain churches, 
the practice of various mortifications, taking religious vows, founding 
religious houses, and altogether observing the rules laid down by the 
Church. 

The Catholic Reply, This is a most misleading statement 
of what we believe; it suggests that, in our opinion, all the 
merit of good works consists in the mechanical performance 
of outward actions, that the rules laid down by the Church 
take precedence of God's commandments, and that it is a 
matter of indifference for what reason the good works are 
performed, whether for love of God, or from a sense of our 
own sinfulness, or from force of habit, or even from motives 
of hypocrisy. 

The real teaching of the Catholic Church is this: A work is 
rendered good in the sense of meritorious by the grace of 
God which prompts its performance; hence in order to be 
good in this sense, a work must be performed by one in the 



loo TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

state of grace, it must be in accordance with God's will, and 
must be done with the intention of pleasing Him (Matth. 
vi, i). The good works especially extolled by the Catholic 
Church, as well as in Holy Scripture, are prayer, fasting, 
and almsgiving (Tob. xii, 8; Matth. vi), obedience to the 
commandments of God, fulfilment of one's duties in life, 
and patience in suffering. 

Protestants tell us that they describe as good works those which 
proceed from the conversion of the heart to God (such conversion being 
effected by the Holy Spirit), and also those which are performed in 
compliance with God's law as contained in the Bible. 

The Catholic Reply, This again is Catholic doctrine. Lu- 
ther, however, and his followers recognized no true conver- 
sion of the heart to God, effected by the Holy Spirit; they 
thought it impossible to fulfil the law of God, and regarded 
good works as useless, if not actually harmful. 

COMMENTARY 

Luther taught explicitly that justification is alone by faith 
that lays hold of Christ through the words of Holy Scrip- 
ture, and not by the faith that includes charity {Werke, 
Wittenb., i, 47); those who wish to add love to faith are, in 
Luther's opinion, ^4gnorant and blundering asses." When 
Melanchthon quietly reminded him of St. Paul's words re- 
garding the necessity of charity, Luther called him a Mame- 
luke for agreeing with the papists in laying stress upon the 
cooperation of charity and hope (Plank, Gesch. d. Entsteh,, 
vi, 80). Luther would not tolerate any allusion to good works 
and goes so far as to say : '^ Faith that is connected with works 
does not justify; however trivial the works may be, it ceases 
to be faith" (Epp, Aurif., tom. I, fol. 345 b). When some 
one remarked that faith ought to be living and active, he 
called this assertion ^^a wretched, patched-up phrase" 
(Werke, Walch, XVII, 840). 

At the present time Protestants admit the truth of much 
which Luther most decidedly rejected, and we should view 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS loi 

this action with joy, if only the very truths that the CathoHc 
Church always has upheld and defended were not now brought 
forward as the triumphant results of the Reformation. 

Luther did not trouble about a true conversion of the heart 
to God, effected by the Holy Spirit. He wrote that a Chris- 
tian was not under the law but free, not only from the Pope's 
abominations and the blasphemous enactments of men, but 
also from all the control that God's law had over us {Ep. ad 
Gal., Wittenb., Werke, I, 229) : ^^ Christ gave us no command- 
ments" (f. 216), and " if you should imagine Christ to be a 
judge or legislator, ready to demand an account of the manner 
in which you have spent your life, you may be perfectly sure 
that it is not Christ, but the very devil himself" (216 b). 
The Pope was obliged to condemn Luther's theory that a just 
man sinned whenever he did a good work, and that a good 
work was at least a venial sin (Wittenb., VH, 117 b). 

The Object of Faith 

Protestants give the following as one of the chief differences between 
their doctrines and those of the Roman Catholic Church: Protestants 
regard faith as an acceptation of God's word revealed in Holy Scrip- 
ture, whilst Roman Catholics, though they accept God's word as an 
object of faith, lay stress on the importance of believing everything 
taught by the Holy Roman Church. 

This statement creates in the mind of the reader an impres- 
sion that Catholicism sets human on a level .with divine utter- 
ances, or even allows the former to take precedence of the 
latter. Yet the Vatican Council declared faith to be a super- 
natural virtue by means of which we accept, in reliance upon 
God's grace, whatever He has revealed, and we believe it, 
not because our reason recognizes it as the truth, but be- 
cause God's word is eminently worthy of credence. The word 
of God, in the full meaning of the term, is for us Catholics the 
sole object of faith. 

Because God's revelations were revealed and intrusted to 
men, and because Christ appointed His Church to be the 
infallible guardian and teacher of the faith, as is plain from 



102 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Holy Scripture, we believe what the Holy Roman Church 
calls upon us to believe. We believe in the word of God as 
it is recorded in the Bible and preserved in the tradition of the 
Church, but these are not two distinct objects of belief, nor 
is one the word of God and the other the word of man, but 
we accept the whole word of God from the Church to whom 
it was intrusted. This word cannot vary and be adapted to 
the opinions of men, and the Church cannot teach anything 
else but what God has spoken and revealed, nor can she ever 
contradict what stands written in Holy Scripture any more 
than an ambassador can alter the message that he is sent to 
deliver, or a judge give a sentence not in accordance with the 
law that it is his duty to interpret and enforce. 

As God does not speak to each individual, we should have 
no means of attaining to a full and assured faith unless we 
possessed an infallible teacher of faith and an interpreter of 
the written word of God. Every bond of union between the 
faithful would soon be severed, and every reason for assured 
faith would vanish, if the Church ceased to insist upon unity 
and if our adherence to her doctrines were made optional. 
Hence St. Paul earnestly appeals to the Corinthians, in the 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ^'all to speak the same thing, 
that there be no schisms," and to be "in the same mind and 
in the same judgment" (i Cor. i, lo). 

This necessary unanimity in faith is possible then only 
when it is derived from the divine word preserved in the 
Church of Christ. Who has ever derived his faith from Holy 
Scripture alone? Not the Apostles or their contemporaries 
and disciples; nor did even Luther receive the Bible by itself, 
with the interpretation assigned to it for centuries in the 
Catholic Church. Indeed, he himself desired his followers 
not to believe the Bible alone, but to accept his views upon 
it. "I will not have my teaching criticized by any one," he 
wrote, "not even by angels. Whoever refuses to accept it, 
cannot be saved" (yVerke, Erlangen, 28, 144). And again: 
"No human being ever taught Hke Luther." "T, Dr. Martin 
Luther," he said, "will have it so, I am wiser than the whole 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 103 

world" (Wittenb. ed., V, 107). When some one reproached 
him for inserting the word alone in his translation of Romans 
iii, 28, he said: "If a papist tries to make a fuss about this 
word, tell him outright that Martin Luther intends it to 
stand. A papist and an ass are one and the same thing" 
{Deutsche Werke, V, 171). In fact he declared frankly: "I 
care nothing for all the texts of Scripture [which speak of good 
works], Christ is on this [i.e., my] side" (Wittenb., ed. I, 146, 
147). Luther required the preachers of his doctrines to con- 
form exactly to his views (Plank, Gesch. des prot. Lehrbegriffs, 
II, 385, 387; IV, 67). Therefore his followers were not al- 
lowed to believe the Bible alone, but also Luther's opinions 
and interpretations. Luther asserted, though he could not 
prove, his own infallibility, in opposition to the real infalli- 
bility of the teaching authority in the Catholic Church based 
on Scripture and tradition, and in opposition also to Holy 
Scripture itself. 

Most Protestants of the present day do not believe merely 
what they find in the Bible, but they accept the teaching of 
many men, for which the Bible contains no justification. 
They put faith in Luther, or in their own ministers, or in 
some modern line of thought, or in their own prejudices in- 
herited from their forefathers. We Catholics, however, put 
faith only in the truth revealed by God, and in accepting 
this we hope to receive God's grace, to please Him, and to find 
salvation. 

The Catholic Understanding of Faith 

Protestants tell us that it is questionable whether, according to 
Catholic doctrine, earnest confidence in God's mercy forms part of the 
right faith. Faith may indeed be the first step towards justification, 
but it does not go far, since the Council of Trent affirmed it to be possi- 
ble for a man to be a Christian and possess this faith without having 
any life, charity, or enjoyment of divine grace. 

Holy Scripture contains several clear allusions to a dead 
faith, compatible with the state of God's wrath, for the devils 
possess faith of this kind. It is, however, worthless for sal- 



I04 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

vation, being like a dead body without a soul. As soon as 
God's grace begins to affect the sinner, it behooves him vol- 
untarily to cooperate with it, for it rests with him whether 
God's gift is really to be his salvation or to remain dead and 
unprofitable. His faith must be quickened to life, and fear, 
contrition, purpose of amendment, confidence in and, above 
all, love of God must be added to it. Faith, alive through 
charity, is the root and foundation of justification; and when 
it is brought into relation with justification and salvation, 
hearty confidence in God's grace and true love of God must 
inevitably be associated with it. 

Luther's real views regarding justification by faith alone 
are obscure. On the one hand he denies that faith can remain 
dead, since he believes it to be exclusively God's work in 
man. A sinner cannot, in Luther's opinion, voluntarily ac- 
cept the faith, but his will is like a horse that submits to the 
rider whether he be God or the devil. Hence faith once be- 
stowed by God cannot remain dead. On the other hand 
Luther was most careful to eliminate from faith all activity 
manifesting itself in hope or charity; in faith, as he con- 
ceived of it, there was to be nothing human, nothing volun- 
tary, nothing pleasing to God. '^ Faith alone justifies," was 
his dogma, ^^ faith which apprehends Christ through the word, 
not the kind of faith which includes charity " {Deutsche Werke, 
Wittenberg, I, f. 47 b). Therefore, according to Luther, 
charity ought to be altogether excluded as having nothing to 
do with the work of justification. 

This was indeed a new faith, unknown to previous genera- 
tions, a kind of faith that was not the dead faith capable of 
remaining in the soul, though charity, grace, and supernatu- 
ral life may all be lacking, nor yet a faith quickened by char- 
ity and manifesting itself actively in good works. What sort 
of faith then was this new faith of Luther's? It was undoubt- 
edly a dead faith, such as St. James describes; Luther's art 
had no power to call it to life. There is no intermediate state 
between life and death, and Luther's faith was dead, incapa- 
ble of leading to salvation. His own followers, happily ob- 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 105 

livious of his real opinions, have to a great extent abandoned 
this doctrine upon which Luther himself insisted most em- 
phatically, and have returned to the old Catholic view of 
faith. They are far from acknowledging this to be the case, 
for they persist in regarding the Catholic Church as the 
mother of all error and Catholic doctrines as falsehoods de- 
vised by men. Hence on this, as on other points, they mis- 
represent the Catholic Church, and attack, as being monstrous 
errors, doctrines that she has never taught, whilst they extol, 
as truths peculiar to Protestantism, things that they really 
owe to Catholic teaching. 

Faith and Good Works 

Protestants tell us that it is the special glory of their Church to teach 
that men are justified and saved solely through faith in Jesus Christ and 
not through any merit due to good works. They declare that Roman 
Catholicism attaches vast importance to good works, and teaches that 
by their means sin can be completely removed, and further graces and 
even eternal life can be merited. 

The Catholic teaching on the subject of good works is per- 
fectly clear, but Protestants do not state it intelligibly. 
What we understand by good works are all the actions and 
sufiferings collectively of one who is a child of God, being re- 
generate through grace, or all the good fruits which Christ 
said every good tree must bring forth (Matth. vii, 17). We 
know that our good works are possible, real, and meritori- 
ous solely through God's grace and the infinite merits of Jesus 
Christ; but at the same time we are aware that, in virtue of 
possessing free will, we can accept or refuse the grace offered 
us by God; we can cooperate faithfully with it and put the 
talents given us out to usury, or we may receive grace in 
vain (2 Cor. vi, i), and bury our talent in the earth. Hence 
we strive ^^by good works to make sure our calling and elec- 
tion" (2 Peter i, 10), and are convinced that if we neglect to 
do good works, we shall lose grace and fail to gain eternal life, 
but if we are zealous in their performance, we shall not only 
show our obedience but merit also a reward in heaven, for 



io6 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

St. Paul tells us that every man shall receive his own reward 
according to his labour (i Cor. iii, 8), and our Lord Himself 
speaks of the joys of heaven as a reward. By our own exer- 
tions we could never gain this reward, and we feel how far all 
our works fall short of what God's grace purposes and is able 
to effect in us and by our agency. We know that we may well 
describe ourselves as improfitable servants, but nevertheless 
when we faithfully cooperate voluntarily with God's grace, 
we are acting in conformity with His will and doing what is 
pleasing and meritorious in His sight. This is the teaching of 
divine revelation, and so far from supplying us with any ground 
for vainglory it impels us to serve God with thankful hearts, 
and to love Him who first loved us. 

The Protestant doctrine appears to us most confused and 
out of harmony with Holy Scripture. It is quite a mistake to 
say that Catholicism teaches that sin can be completely re- 
moved by means of good works; the Church would repudi- 
ate such a doctrine, for she tells us that we are saved solely 
through faith in Christ and through His merits. 

Luther maintained that by faith alone salvation was pos- 
sible, such faith being independent of all good works and 
of charity, besides all that proceeds from charity. He 
believed man to be incapable of doing anything to please 
God, and considered even our best actions to be sins. The 
Gospel, in Luther's opinion, tells us what Christ has done for 
men, not what it is the duty of men to do. A pious man sins 
in all his good works, and a good work performed in the best 
possible way is still a sin. Hence from one point of view 
Luther cried, ^^ Away with all good works!" but on the other 
hand, he could not altogether ignore the explicit statements 
of Holy Scripture and the voice of conscience, so he opened a 
sort of backdoor to the good works that he had apparently 
discarded. According to the regulations for the Protestant 
Church in Wiirttemberg good works ought to be performed 
in testimony of obedience and gratitude, and as the good 
fruits of penance, but not ^^with any idea that thereby we 
atone to God for our sins." 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 107 

Surely it is impossible to reconcile these doctrines! How 
can there be good fruits where there is no good seed? Yet 
every seed of charity which might produce good works is to 
be absolutely excluded from the work of justification. And 
why should there be ^^good fruits of penance" where there is 
no thought of really making atonement for sin? Our Lord 
Himself compared a Christian working in God's service with 
men labouring in a vineyard (Matth. xx, 1-16); v/hy did the 
labourers go to the vineyard if they did not expect to earn 
the stipulated wages? 

For any one to assert that faith alone, exclusive of good 
works, can justify seems as unreasonable as it would be for a 
musician to say: ^^My talents and genius alone make me an 
artist; I can dispense with all my instrimients, with my piano 
and violin, for my art does not reside in them; they are un- 
necessary or even injurious to it.'' It is, of course, true that 
he is an artist because he possesses certain natural gifts, and 
without them the most expensive piano in the world would 
not make him a musician. But still he must exercise his 
talents, he must study in order to develop them. He can 
neither retain nor display his powers unless he has an in- 
strument and uses it with tireless industry. So is it with 
the life of a Christian. The ability to be a Christian comes to 
him solely through God's grace, and in order to preserve this 
ability he must have faith, which is as necessary to him as 
talent is to a musician, and is an unmerited gift of God just 
as much as an artistic genius is a gift. But the musician can- 
not develop and display his talent without an instrument, nor 
can a Christian develop and display his faith without good 
works. 

The Commandments of God and of the Church 

Protestants often say that with regard to good works there is a wide 
discrepancy between the teaching of the "better sort of CathoHcism" 
and that of the papacy and its supporters. They acknowledge that 
much that is admirable may be found in the catechisms and devotional 
works of the Catholic Church, especially in the Following of Christ, 
but they maintain that the rules laid down by the Popes and the ordi- 



io8 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

nary practices of the Church are very different. The commandments 
of God are treated as of secondary importance compared with those of the 
Church. Great stress is laid upon the observance of the prescribed 
hoHdays and upon attendance at Mass, which is said in Latin. The 
sermon is regarded as unimportant. There are, moreover, the so- 
called fast-days on which all kinds of dainties may be eaten and only 
flesh meat is forbidden. Great efficacy is ascribed to the repetition of 
certain forms of prayer, and this is a prominent part of the religious 
life. We very often read in papal documents that those who attend 
missions and make some sacrifice of money receive complete forgiveness 
for all their sins, etc. Such are the good works extolled and recom- 
mended by the papacy. 

Statements such as the above enable us to see how diflStCult, 
how almost impossible, it is for people ignorant of our faith to 
understand our spiritual amd moral life. Where a Catholic 
recognizes harmony, they perceive nothing but jarring dis- 
cords; a Catholic welcomes advice as tending to the salva- 
tion of his soul, or as revealing the will of God, to which he 
submits as willingly as a soldier to his ofl&cer's word of com- 
mand, or a traveller to his guide's instructions, or a child to his 
parents' orders, but a non-Catholic talks about hirnian legis- 
lation and oppressive constraint. When a soul, eager to be 
saved, asks the holy Catholic Church, ^^ What must I do that 
I may have life everlasting?" it receives instruction and 
guidance. If it asks further, ^^The commandments I have 
kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?'' the 
Church points out the higher way, that it may lay up treas- 
ure in heaven according to our Lord's words (Matth. xix, 21). 
The Church shows the sinner the path of penance, she stimu- 
lates all to unwearied zeal; she admonishes the holy to 
become yet more holy; for all she has some instruction, coun- 
sel, or command. She gives milk to babes and meat to the 
strong, and in all that she does and orders her only aim is to 
lead souls safely to Christ. But what advice or help can 
Protestantism supply to one desirous of attaining to perfec- 
tion and salvation? Nothing but, "Believe, and do what you 
like; it is for you to order your own ways; only beware of 
believing or doing anything that might eventually lead you 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 109 

to Catholicism.'' This accounts for the restlessness of many 
dissatisfied souls, for their constant quest of fresh paths to 
salvation, and for their incessant search for new fountains 
after they have forsaken the old springs. It is false to say that 
there is a wide discrepancy between the teaching of the better 
sort of Catholicism and that of the papacy and its support- 
ers. The Following of Christ is one of the fairest blossoms of 
Catholic moral theology, and no Pope has ever found fault 
with this book; on the contrary, all have agreed in recom- 
mending it as most useful in helping men to lead a good and 
truly Catholic life. The catechisms and books of devotion 
alluded to by Protestants were compiled by the supporters 
of the papacy and published with the sanction of the bishops. 
All alike teach most emphatically that the essence of Chris- 
tian perfection and the way of salvation consist in loving 
God above all things and in following the example of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. There are other things which are more or less 
necessary means of attaining these ends, but they do not con- 
stitute perfection. 

It is, therefore, equally untrue to say that the command- 
ments of God are, in accordance with papal regulations, re- 
garded as of secondary importance compared with those of 
the Church. If a music teacher tells his pupil to practise 
scales every day he does not imply that a musician's perfec- 
tion consists in this exercise, but he considers that scales con- 
duce to perfection and therefore he takes care that they 
shall not be neglected. If a physician orders a patient to re- 
frain from certain kinds of food, no one is so foolish as to sup- 
pose that the physician cares less for his patient's health than 
for these directions. The rules and commandments of the 
Church, like God's commandments, serve the sole aim of 
training us to live as children of God and Holy Church, of 
promoting the welfare of our souls, and of guiding us to per- 
fection. They are never the main thing, but are always only 
necessary means towards that end. A glance into any Cath- 
oHc Catechism would suffice to convince any one that, in 
the moral instruction given to children, far more attention is 



no THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

paid to the commandments of God than to those of the 
Church. 

We are certainly required to observe the holidays of obli- 
gation; but did not our Lord Himself observe the Jewish 
festivals? That assistance at Holy Mass is an essential 
part of the observance of a festival is a matter of course to 
any one who imderstands what the Mass is to Catholics, and 
who reads (Acts xx, 7) how, even in Apostolic days. Chris- 
tians used to assemble not only to hear instructions but for 
the breaking of bread. St. Justin, who lived in the second 
century, tells us what they meant by this ^^ breaking of bread.'' 
Protestants speak of Mass as being recited or performed, but 
most of it is read in a low voice, and Catholics follow in 
spirit even when they do not understand the Latin words. 
There is no lack of prayer books and devotional works, and 
the sermon is always in the vernacular. Protestants reproach 
us with regarding the latter as of little importance; the 
charge has been refuted many times but is constantly re- 
vived. The altar, and not the pulpit, is the central point in 
Catholic churches, but in every age the sermon has formed 
an important part of our worship, and the Council of Trent 
issued stringent orders that sermons should be preached on 
every Sunday and festival, and still more often, if necessary, 
in Lent and Advent. Moreover the faithful are to be admon- 
ished to hear the word of God expounded in their own parish 
church (sess. 24, cap. 4, can. 7 de ref.). Protestants object 
to our fast-days, and yet there is plenty of justification for 
them in the Bible (Joel ii, 12 ; Tob. xii, 8; Deut. ix, 18; Matth. 
xvii, 20; iv. 2; Acts xiv, 22). How they ought to be ob- 
served according to the spirit of the Church is taught in every 
catechism and by the life of almost any saint. No reference 
will be found there to all those dainties in which we are sup- 
posed to indulge on fast-days; and those who criticize our 
fasts, seem to have no idea of the distinction between fasting 
and abstinence from flesh meat. 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS iii 

Outward Practices 

We are accused of attaching over great importance to the 
repetition of certain forms of prayer. Christ Himself as- 
cribed the greatest possible power to prayer, and the Our 
Father, our Lord's own prayer, is the one most frequently 
used, although there is surely nothing un-Christian in using 
other forms of prayer or in preparing for the hour of death. 
It would undoubtedly be superstitious to ascribe any efficacy 
to the mere words, if they are uttered with no attention or 
devotion. 

Some mention must be made of the old calumny that the 
Pope promises full forgiveness of all sins to such as subscribe 
to the so-called missions, etc. Even educated Protestants 
seem to believe that this is a fact, but not one Catholic, how- 
ever ignorant, imagines any such absurdity. 

Our antagonists display great ingenuity in representing 
our holy religion as a senseless medley of foolish outward 
practices and of rules made by men. They lay hold of some 
few points of Catholic observance, distort them, and then 
declare them to be the highly extolled good works that the 
Pope recommends. They are mistaken, however, and the 
fruits of the really good works in the Catholic Church may 
be seen by those who, impartially and without prejudice, 
study the lives of her saints. How many martyrs and confes- 
sors, missionaries and virgins, and servants of the sick and 
poor have sanctified themselves in every rank of life by means 
of poverty, self-sacrifice, humiliation, and labour, and have 
been brought by the Catholic Church to Jesus, the divine 
Shepherd of souls! Where are the fruits of Luther's famous 
doctrine that good works are impossible, useless, or even 
detrimental to salvation? Luther answers this question him- 
self (second sermon on first Sunday of Advent): ^'As a re- 
sult of this doctrine [that faith alone is necessary for salva- 
tion] the world as it grows older, grows more wicked, and 
people are now possessed by seven devils, whereas previously 
they were possessed by only one." On another occasion 



112 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

(Wittenb., German ed., part 7, p. 241 b) he complained that 
the devil often reproached him with having taught what was 
wrong, and having disturbed the state of the churches, 
which under the papacy was calm and peaceful. "I cannot 
deny," he added, "that I am often filled with fear and anx- 
iety." Those who had forsaken the ancient Church were 
finally compelled to abandon Luther's teaching on the sub- 
ject of good works, and to return more or less to the Catholic 
doctrine that he had despised; life would otherwise have 
ceased to be possible. They were, however, very careful not 
to describe their changed opinions as Catholic, and so they 
took pains to misrepresent what the Catholic Church really 
taught. What Luther once said in another sense is perfectly 
true: "Unless the Pope fed us, as well as his own people, we 
should all die of hunger" {Table Talk, p. 269 a, Latin ed.). 

The Evangelical Counsels 

Protestants assert that in addition to requiring good works, the 
Catholic Church teaches that there are works of supererogation. If 
for instance any one goes into a monastery, he has, according to Roman 
Catholic opinion, abandoned the world, and secured assurance of sal- 
vation for others as well as himself, since, in taking the vows of religion, 
he does more than is actually demanded of him, and so lays up a store 
of merit which he does not need personally. Power is given to the Pope 
to use this treasury of the Church for the rehef of the souls in purgatory. 

In statements such as these it is hardly possible to recognize 
the truly bibhcal. Catholic doctrine regarding the evangeUcal 
counsels and their significance. Such a misrepresentation 
serves as a scarecrow to young Protestants, and is designed 
to prevent them from ever associating with people who be- 
lieve in works of supererogation. 

In speaking of Protestantism, Schopenhauer, who knew 
it intimately and was certainly not friendly to the Catholic 
Church, said that it had eliminated the central doctrine of 
Christianity and was gradually adopting the theory that a 
loving Father created the world for men's enjoyment, and 
if only they conform in some respects to His will. He intends 
to provide a much more beautiful world for them hereafter. 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 113 

"This may be a good religion," adds Schopenhauer, "for 
well-to-do, married, and enlightened Protestant ministers, but 
it is not Christianity." Catholicism, on the contrary, re- 
quires each individual to be in earnest with regard to the strict 
obligations imposed by the Gospel. We know that there are 
various gifts and that what suits one, does not suit another. 
A man may be an excellent soldier and yet not be fit to com- 
mand an army; another may be a first-rate farmer although 
he is a poor writer. Men differ in their tastes, talents, dis- 
position, and vocation; and the Catholic moral law, which 
is based on the Bible, recognizes this fact. The Church 
teaches that all are called to perfection, and are boimd to 
strive after it as long as they live (Matth. v, 48). Each, how- 
ever, ought to be perfect in his own state of life. Some can 
exclaim with St. Paul, "The charity of Christ presseth us" 
(2 Cor. V, 14), and these follow the Apostle's admonition and 
seek the better gifts of grace and more perfect charity (i Cor. 
xii, 31, and xiii), asking with the rich young man, "Master, 
what good shall I do, that I may have life everlasting? " If 
such as these receive the answer, "Keep the command- 
ments," they are not satisfied, but ask again, "What is yet 
wanting to me?" They long to do more than their bounden 
duty. Slavish souls work only imder compulsion; a bureau- 
crat's life is regulated by formal precepts and he is contented 
to do his ordinary routine, but even in secular callings there 
are many who do far more than is strictly required of them. 
Himian society bestows on such men orders and distinctions, 
monimaents are erected in their honour, and their names are 
recorded in history. In the Church of Christ, too, the Holy 
Ghost impels many favoured souls to higher efforts, and in- 
spires them with the desire to do, sacrifice, and suiffer every- 
thing for love of Christ and for the salvation of souls, — their 
own, primarily, but also those of others, that thus they may 
win all for Christ. Can it be expected of Holy Church that 
she should treat these children of hers as Luther would have 
her do? He declared that whoever maintained good works 
and vows to be efficacious, was under the influence of the 



114 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

devil and false to the faith (Wittenb., vi, 200 b), and warned 
people not to be too good: ^^ Why should we worry ourselves 
with the attempt to make men pious?'' {Table Talk, Latin 
ed., 290, and ed. Aurifaber, 178.) According to Luther the 
Church ought not to describe as perfect a life wholly dedicated 
to the service of God, nor ought she to call those who desire 
to lead such a life "her joy and her crown." Would any king 
treat his most loyal and devoted servants thus? About four- 
teen himdred years ago Salvianus made a remark that still 
holds good: "Hatred against the religious orders increases 
in proportion to the decay of religion among the nations." 

Why does any Catholic enter a monastery? Not in order 
to obtain perfect certainty of salvation, for many may go to 
perdition in spite of having worn the religious habit. Still 
less does he fancy that he will have nothing to do but lead 
an easy existence within the monastery walls, paying a merely 
external obedience to the rules of the Order; such a life 
would be no better than life out in the world. Nor does he 
dream of being able henceforth to sell his works of superero- 
gation. What pitiful little minds those people must possess 
who can invent such charges! No; a Catholic enters a monas- 
tery in order to serve God with the greatest possible appli- 
cation, in accordance with his own vocation and inclinations, 
to tread most faithfully the narrow way that leads to heaven, 
to bear his cross, to deny himseK, and to follow Christ who 
had not where to lay His head, who lived a pure and celibate 
life, and for our sake became obedient even imto death. 

How does he pass his time in the monastery? In volimtary 
poverty, for our Saviour said to the rich young man, "If thou 
wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor 
. . . and come, follow me" (Matth. xix, 21). He leads a 
chaste and frugal life, for Christ said, "There are eunuchs, 
who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of 
heaven; he that can take, let him take it" (Matth. xix, 12), 
and St. Paul wrote, "I would that all men were even as my- 
self [i.e., unmarried] . . . Concerning virgins, I have no 
commandment of the Lord, but I give coimsel," etc. (see i 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 115 

Cor. vii). Finally every one in a monastery has to deny him- 
self and practise absolute obedience to his spiritual superior, 
thus becoming like Him who came, not to do His own will, 
but the will of Him that sent Him. A soldier swears to be 
loyal to his king, and in the same way, after an adequate pro- 
bation, a religious binds himself voluntarily by solemn vows 
to serve God and observe these three evangelical counsels. 

It is enough to mention the Orders founded respectively 
by St. Benedict and St. Francis, and the work done by St. 
Vincent de Paul, for my readers to acknowledge at once that 
the Church, civilization, and human society in general all owe 
them a great debt of gratitude. Can a root be bad that pro- 
duces such charming and luxurious blossoms of virtue and 
purity, such precious fruits of charity, designed to alleviate 
every imaginable form of suffering? It is indeed true that 
the innimierable servants and handmaids of Christ, who have 
devoted all their time and faculties to following their divine 
Master's example, have obtained salvation for many besides 
themselves and have stored up a wealth of merit in which 
others participate. But neither they nor the Church bar- 
gain and trade with their good works. They cooperate loyally 
with the graces that come to them through Christ's merits 
alone, and they transmit them freely to others. They are like 
a fertile j&eld that produces, for the support of the needy, the 
fruits that the sun has ripened. 

The late Vice-President Sherman, addressing the gradu- 
ating class at Nazareth, Michigan, May 18, 191 1, said in 
part: 

"To me the Catholic Sisterhood seems to be one of the 
strongest proofs of the existence of a hereafter. I speak not 
as a member of the Catholic Church, or a sectarian, or a 
member of any religious belief. These noble women have 
given up all that they have in this world, their wealth, their 
homes, their friends, their hearts, their lives, and have de- 
voted all their energies and entire attention to the rearing of 
others' children, to the guiding of youths and to the turning 
of mature minds to loftier sentiments with no hope whatever 



ii6 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

of any reward, except that which they hope for in the great 
beyond. 

'^ There is no more potent demonstration of the existence 
of God than the work of the Sisters. All praise, all honor to 
the great army of the Catholic Sisterhoods!'' 

Lina Eckenstein, in the preface to her work on Woman 
Under Monasticism, says: "The attitude of mind which had 
been harbored and cultivated in the cloister, must be reck- 
oned among the most civilizing influences which have helped 
to develop mental and moral strength in Western Europe." 

Self -Righteousness 

Protestants proceed to say, further, that the ease with which Cath- 
olics can do penance and make satisfaction, in conjunction with their 
lamentable theory regarding works of supererogation, gives rise on the 
one hand to a frivolous spirit that takes God's commandments and their 
fulfilment far too lightly, and, on the other hand, to a self-righteous 
arrogance that relies for salvation upon good works of one's own selection. 

A statement such as this makes one wonder whether Prot- 
estants ever read the lives of Catholic saints. No one who 
had ever done so could produce such a distorted misrep- 
resentation of Catholic life and activity. What saint or 
preacher ever taught that we might take God's command- 
ments and their fulfilment lightly? Did any saint ever live 
in self-righteous arrogance, relying upon good works of his 
own selection? An examination of the whole Acta Sanctorum 
would not result in the discovery of a single saint of this kind. 
There are, unhappily, Catholics who take God's command- 
ments lightly, but even they would hardly imagine themselves 
to be on the right road on this account, and it is certain that 
Catholicism combats, rather than encourages, self-righteous 
arrogance. Professor Harnack, a Protestant theologian, 
bears the following testimony to our Church: ''Con- 
fidence in God, unfeigned humility, certainty of salvation, 
and devotion to the service of the brethren are all to be 
found in the Catholic Church; mmaerous brethren take up 
the cross of Christ and through the practice of self-condem- 



FAITH AND GOOD WORKS 117 

nation attain to joy in God, such as Paul and Augustine 
experienced/' 

It is strange that Protestants are unable to believe in the 
existence of really moral virtue and greatness apart from self- 
righteousness, and cannot see that striving after perfection 
is the necessary condition of all religious life, whereas to 
fancy oneself to have reached the climax of perfection would 
be to deal it its deathblow. 

It is in the Bible that we find the good works enumerated 
to which God promises a glorious reward; yet we have been 
bitterly reproached for discovering in Holy Scripture any- 
thing about duties and rewards. It is a strange fact that the 
people who used to cry, ^^Down with your false and evil doc- 
trine of good works, whereby you flatter yourselves that you 
can please God; we glory only in the justice of Christ," — 
these very people now boast of possessing what they once 
abused us for having. They must not take it too much amiss 
if we prefer to adhere to*:the old Catholic teaching and refrain 
from adopting the new Protestant theory. 

To a Catholic the good works recommended in Luther's 
Catechism — for we may disregard his other works — are of a 
rather startling character. For instance, the following pas- 
sage occurs in his Longer Catechism: '^When nature, as im- 
planted in us by God, impels us and is resisted, it is impossible 
to live chastely in a state of celibacy." It may be true enough 
that we are poor miserable Christians, subject to the ordi- 
nances of men, and so blinded as to need many prayers. 
No one can fail to benefit by prayers offered with a good in- 
tention, but it is hardly likely that our Protestant fellow 
Christians pray much for us; nor do they follow Luther's 
admonition, uttered on his deathbed: ^^Pray for our Lord 
God (!) and His Gospel, that it may be well with Him, for the 
Council of Trent and the Pope himself are angry with Him " 
{Historie und Predigt des Colius zu Eisleben, 1546). Protes- 
tants are more disposed to abuse and hate us than to pray for 
us; for instance, in Luther's ^^ prayer" {SdmtL Werke, ErL, 
XXV, 107) occur the words, "If I am to say, ' Hallowed be 



ii8 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Thy Name,' I must add, * Accursed, damned, and dishonoured 
be the names of papists.' If I am to say, 'Thy kingdom 
come,' I must add, 'Accursed, damned, and destroyed be the 
papacy.' This is the prayer that I offer imceasingly with 
heart and voice every day." 

It must be acknowledged, moreover, that this proposal to 
pray for us savours somewhat of the prayer mentioned in 
Luke xviii, ii. We poor publicans are first abused as blind 
and deluded people who fancy ourselves able to help others 
by our works of supererogation, and in the same breath our 
opponents tell us that they propose to help us by means of 
intercessory prayer on our behalf, such prayer being a work 
of supererogation! 



VI. THE VENERATION OF SAINTS 

The Protestant Assertion. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, 
it is a duty to invoke the saints, to have recourse to their help and in- 
tercession, to regard their relics as sacred, and to show suitable honour 
to their statues and pictures. Roman Catholics are taught to rely 
particularly upon the Mother of Jesus Christ, who is called the Queen 
of Heaven and Ruler of the World, and who is believed to have been, 
from her birth onwards, uncontaminated with original sin. It is a duty 
to kneel in prayer to this Queen of Heaven and to others, whom the 
Catholic Church has raised to the dignity of saints, and to expect help 
and the cure of disease at places where their reHcs are preserved, or 
even from miraculous medals and statues of Mary. 

The Catholic Reply, i. The Catholic Church does not 
teach that we must invoke the saints, but only that we may 
do so, and that it is a good and beneficial practice, because 
we rely upon reason and Holy Scripture and believe that the 
saints take an interest in their brethren here on earth (Luke 
XV, lo) and pray for them (2 Mach. xv, 14). 2. As to the 
Mother of Jesus Christ, whom we are supposed to worship 
as a divine person and as our only Redeemer, we are indeed 
taught to put great confidence in her, but we rely chiefly on 
her divine Son. We trust that Mary, the much loved Mother 
of God, will intercede for us, but we know that Jesus alone 
can save us. 3. If the Apostles of Christ are to be rulers and 
judges in His kingdom, without detriment to His honour, 
there can be no harm in calling the Mother of our heavenly 
King Queen and ruler of heaven; we do so in a childlike spirit 
of reverence, and every Catholic understands what is meant. 
4. That Mary was conceived without original sin is only the 
necessary result of her position in the scheme of our redemp- 
tion. The contrary opinion has never prevailed among 
Christians. 5. The Catholic Church does not raise the dead 
to the dignity of saints, but, after a long and careful investi- 



I20 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

gation, she allows us to venerate as holy some of her mem- 
bers whom God Himself has sanctified. 6. With regard to 
statues and pictures, the Council of Trent decided that due 
honour should be shown them; not that we believe there to 
be anything divine about them, nor that we ought to rely 
upon them, but simply because in honouring them we wor- 
ship Christ and testify our reverence for the saints. 

Charles Kingsley wrote: "Why should not those who are 
gone to the Lord be actually nearer us, not farther from us, in the 
heavenly world; praying for us, and it may be influencing and 
guiding us in a hundred ways, of which we, in our prison-house 
of mortality, can not dream? " {Letters and Memories, II, 264). 

According to Protestant Doctrine it is proper to respect the memory of 
good and holy persons, and especially of our Lord's Mother; we may 
consider how they died and imitate their faith, but nowhere in Holy 
Scripture are we told to address any petition to a departed saint; we 
ought rather to have recourse to Jesus Christ, the one Mediator between 
God and man (i Tim. ii, 5), who is able to hear us and promises that He 
will not cast out those who come to Him (John vi, 37). 

The Catholic Reply. The first part of the preceding para- 
graph states the Catholic practice with regard to the saints. 
If in addition to honouring them we ask their intercession, 
we do so in reliance upon the words of Holy Scripture, where 
we read that *'the continual prayer of a just man availeth 
much" (James v, 16). St. Paul had no intention of denying 
that Christ was the only Mediator between God and man 
when he asked his converts to pray for him (e.g., i Thess. v, 
25), nor has the Catholic who now asks some saint to inter- 
cede for him any idea of denying it. He distrusts his own 
worthiness, but not God's omnipotence and mercy. 

COMMENTARY 

The Catholic doctrine on the subject of invocation of the saints is said 
to encourage their worship, which is detrimental to God's glory and to 
that of our only Mediator, Jesus Christ. 

Hence the explicit statement made by the Council of Trent, 
and reproduced in all Catholic books of instruction, is as- 



THE VENERATION OF SAINTS 121 

sumed to have no weight. As a matter of fact, the veneration 
that we pay to the saints, and especially to the dear Mother 
of God, ought to lead us to Christ and not away from Him. 
The saints are the choicest fruits of His redeeming Blood; 
they are His friends and loyal servants; and now in heaven 
they love their fellow servants as ardently as they did on 
earth. Hence we honour them and ask their prayers, knowing 
well that both our reverence for them and their intercession 
for us are results of the reconciliation effected by Jesus Christ 
who unites all the redeemed in the bond of brotherhood. 
This is why in all her prayers, even when she invokes the in- 
tercession of the saints, the Church invariably turns to God 
HimseK, and concludes with the words, '^Through Jesus 
Christ our Lord." Protestants would have to lay aside one 
of their most effectual weapons against us, were they to rec- 
ognize the truth on this subject, and perceive that the Cath- 
olic Church honours, loves, and adores Jesus Christ as the 
one Mediator, whereas by many Protestants, even by preach- 
ers and professors. He is now no longer regarded as divine, 
and is hardly honoured as a saint. This fact is enough to 
prove that the veneration of saints, practised in the Catholic 
Church, has not, in the course of nineteen centuries, led that 
Church away from Christ. Worthy Protestants are not al- 
lowed to know all this, and over and over again, in Sunday 
schools and from the pulpit, they are told that we Catholics 
deprive Christ of the honour due to Him, that we worship 
idols and pray to the saints and to Mary. Very few converts 
to Catholicism escape having remarks of this kind thrust 
upon them. 

Dr. Schaff says: ^^To say that Papists are idolators is a 
colossal slander on the oldest and largest Church in Christen- 
dom, and is untrue, unjust, uncharitable and unchristian" 
(Creed Revisions, p. 36). 

The Veneration of Mary 

Protestants maintain that in invoking Mary we infringe upon the 
honour of God. In the Roman Breviary Mary is addressed thus: "Thou 



122 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

art the only hope of sinners, through thee we hope for forgiveness of our 
offences, in thee we have the fullest hope of reward. ' ' (The beautiful 
old hymn Ave Maris stella is quoted in support of the Protestant charges, 
in spite of its containing the words: Sumat per te preces, Qui pro nobis 
natus, Tulit esse tuus) Moreover Catholics speak of Mary as "Queen of 
all creatures," "Eternal source of healing," "Refuge for all who have 
recourse to her." A Roman Catholic priest must suggest to a dying man 
the following ejaculations: "Into Thy hands I commend my spirit; 
Lord Jesus, receive my soul. Holy Mary, pray for me; Mary, Mother 
of grace and Mother of mercy, do thou defend me from the enemy, and 
receive me at the hour of death." 

Ever since the time of the Council of Trent, Mariolatry has been 
increasing and culminated under Pius IX who declared: "Our salva- 
tion rests upon the holy Virgin, since God deposited in her all the fulness 
of good, so that, if any hope and any spiritual healing exist for us, we 
receive them solely and alone from her." A Protestant, hearing these 
words, asks with a sigh what has become of our Saviour. 

We, who still believe in our Saviour, feel inclined to ask in 
our turn, "From whom did we receive Him? From whom 
have we derived all our information regarding His wonderful 
conception and birth? Was it not from her through whom 
our heavenly Father bestowed Him upon us sinners? He 
rested on the lap of His virgin Mother both in the stable at 
Bethlehem and at the foot of the cross." We might almost 
go so far as to ask, "What becomes of our Saviour among 
those who refuse to honour Mary as the virgin Mother of 
God? Does He not lose, in consequence of their refusal, the 
divine honour that is His due?" In hymns and the pious 
effusions of devout souls, it is true that expressions occur 
which must be understood according to the spirit in which 
they are written, but in the Roman Breviary and Missal 
there is not a single prayer addressed to any saint or to the 
Blessed Virgin personally. All are addressed to God, and all 
are petitions for the graces which Christ alone merited on our 
behalf. For instance, the prayer said at the Angelus is: 
"Pour forth, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts, that we, to 
whom the incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by 
the message of an angel, may, by His Passion and Cross, be 
brought to the glory of His resurrection, through the same 
Christ our Lord." On the feast of the Immaculate Concep- 



THE VENERATION OF SAINTS 123 

tion the Church prays: '^O God, who by the Virgin's Immac- 
ulate Conception didst prepare a worthy dweUing for Thy 
Son, we beseech Thee, that Thou, who by the death of that 
same Son of Thine, foreseen by Thee, didst preserve her from 
every stain, wouldst grant that by her intercession we also 
may be purified, and so come to Thee. Through the same 
Jesus Christ our Lord." This is the prayer used on a great 
festival in honour of our Lady, and throughout it refers to 
Christ; how is it then possible to ask, ^^ What has become of 
our Saviour?'' 

We are told that ever since the time of the Council of 
Trent Mariolatry has been increasing, and culminated under 
Pius IX. Protestants ought to realize that Mariolatry began 
with the angel's salutation, and cannot rise to any higher point 
than was reached when God, in His gracious design, chose 
Mary to be the Mother of our Lord. It is worth while per- 
haps to quote what Luther says in his exposition of the Mag- 
nificat: ^* These great things were that Mary had become 
Mother of God, and when this took place so many great fa- 
vours were conferred upon her that no one can understand 
them. For there resulted from it all the honour and glory that 
she alone of the whole human race is exalted above all others 
[may we not call such a person '^ Queen" over all the rest?] 
and none is equal to her, and that she has one Son in common 
with our heavenly Father, and such a Son! When we speak 
of her as Mother of God, no one could say anything greater 
of her or to her, not though he had as many tongues as there 
are leaves and blades of grass, stars in heaven and grains of 
sand on the seashore." 

Preaching in the Collegiate Baptist Church in New York, 
in 1912, Rev. Dr. Oscar Haywood said that there had been 
mischievous reactions in religious thought since the Reforma- 
tion. '^ One of those," he said, " has resultedin the creation of a 
prejudice with respect to the Holy Virgin. Her name is rarely 
mentioned in a Protestant Church. We have dispossessed 
her of that honour and glory which is hers by divine right." 

The Western Christian Advocate (Methodist) likewise de- 



124 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

plores this dethronement of Mary: ''We cannot recall ever 
having heard a sermon preached from our Protestant pulpits 
upon the character of Mary, and the subject would seem al- 
most to be tabooed, lest the preacher be misunderstood. Mary 
of Nazareth is scarcely mentioned even in any list of the 
world's greatest women, and yet she gave birth to the world's 
Redeemer, watched over His infancy, trained Him in boy- 
hood when He was subject to His parents, and it was in her 
home that Jesus lived. . . . Why should not Protestants, 
then, look upon her as a type and representative of the high- 
est and holiest womanhood?" 

Long centuries before the Council of Trent, the liturgy of 
St. James was in use in Jerusalem, and it contained the fol- 
lowing prayer uttered by the priest: ''O Mother of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, intercede for me with thine only Son, that He 
may pardon my sins, and accept this sacrifice offered by my 
sinful hands." The Fathers of the Church vie with one an- 
other in honouring the Mother of God, and the invocations in 
the Breviary, to which Protestants object so strongly, are 
extremely ancient. In the name of all the bishops assem- 
bled at the Council of Ephesus in 431, St. Cyril addressed a 
prayer to our Lady, in which he called her '' the venerable 
jewel of the whole world, the support of the true faith, the 
firm foundation of all churches, the Mother of God, through 
whom the entire universe attains to a knowledge of the 
truth," etc. St. Bernard gives a beautiful explanation of 
our reason for calling Mary the Star of the Sea, 

How deep, tender, and true is our love of Mary! In her 
honour poetry has produced its choicest blossoms and art its 
masterpieces. We shall never allow carping criticism to 
diminish our devotion to her, for we are convinced that 
those who attempt to rob us of Mary the Mother, would in 
the end deprive us also of Christ her divine Son. St. Bernard 
was never weary of praising our Lady, but did he on that 
account think little of our Lord? No, it was he who extolled 
the sacred Name of Jesus in the sweetest strains. St. Athana- 
sius stands almost unrivalled in his triumphant defence of 



THE VENERATION OF SAINTS 125 

the divinity of Christ by word of mouth and in writing, 
amidst indescribable sufferings, and his love and enthu- 
siasm for our Saviour were not diminished by his profound 
reverence for the Mother of God. All the great doctors, 
saints, and heroes of antiquity loved and praised, honoured 
and invoked Mary the immaculate Mother, but they did not 
therefore forget Christ. It would be well if at the present 
day our Saviour were known, loved, and served as He was 
in the past by those who reverenced His dear Mother most 
deeply. Protestants need not ask us what has become of 
our Saviour; we are in good company and on the right path 
whenever we say an Ave Maria. 

John Ruskin was sensible of the gracious influence of " the 
Madonna" on the lives and characters of women: ^^I am 
persuaded that the worship of the Madonna has been one 
of the noblest and most vital graces, and has never been 
otherwise than productive of true holiness of life and purity 
of character" (Pors Clavigera, H, Letter XLI). 

The Immaculate Conception 

We are told further that Pius IX raised the theory of our Lady's 
Immaculate Conception to the rank of a dogma of the Catholic Church, 
but travellers to Rome, even during the reign of his predecessor, had 
opportunity to convince themselves that festivals in honour of Mary 
were observed with as much or even more splendour and solemnity as 
the greatest Christian holidays. 

The contrast emphasized in this statement is rather ob- 
scure. Of course festivals in honour of our Lady were ob- 
served in Rome before 1854; they were observed even more 
than a thousand years before that date. It is certain that the 
feast of the Annunciation was observed in 656 as '^the feast 
of the Blessed Virgin," and it is highly probable that the 
feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated about 
that period (Martene, de antiq, eccL rit., Ill, 557). It is also 
true that in Rome festivals are observed with more splendour 
than the greatest Christian festivals in Protestant churches. 
Do Protestants suppose that on such occasions Catholics 



126 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

never think of Christ, and kneel in adoration of Mary- 
alone? If a Protestant, who abhors every kind of Catholic 
festival, asserts that feasts of our Lady were observed in 
Rome during the reign of Pius IX's predecessor with even 
more splendour than the greatest Christian holidays, such 
an assertion leads to nothing, although it may perhaps in- 
tensify the belief, carefully fostered in young Protestants, that 
Roman Catholics are idolaters. 

On December 8, 1854, amidst the enthusiastic applause of 
the Catholic Church, the dogma of the Immaculate Concep- 
tion was solemnly defined by Pius IX, who proclaimed as a 
revealed truth, consistent with Holy Scripture and tradition, 
what had previously been only a matter of pious belief, al- 
though long investigations had resulted in establishing its 
truth, and Catholics had at all times felt that any contrary 
opinion was untenable. The definition of this dogma did not 
cause any Catholic to waver in his faith in Christ as our only 
Mediator, nor did it make any one rely less upon our Lord's 
merits. So far from this dogma being derogatory to the 
honour of Christ, it increases the glory of Him who, by His 
precious Blood alone, purchased this signal favour for His 
Mother. Ten years after his revolt against the Church, 
Luther still believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, 
for he wrote: ^^ Other human beings are conceived in sin, but 
Mary was conceived full of grace. The angel could not have 
said, ^Blessed art thou,' if she had ever lain under the 
curse" (Walch, II, 2616). 

If in any place veneration of the saints is put on a level 
with the service of God, and if the homage due to God alone 
is offered to a saint, this is not the result of the Catholic 
faith but in direct opposition to it; and to condemn such prac- 
tices is right and praiseworthy. They do not occur, however, 
among properly instructed Catholics. 

Relics of the Saints 

With regard to the veneration of relics Protestants remind us that 
their genuineness is often called in question, as in the case of the Holy 



THE VENERATION OF SAINTS 127 

Coat. Yet it is notorious that people come in thousands to visit such 
relics, especially at the times when special indulgences are granted to 
pilgrims. 

People are always fond of honouring the memory of great 
and popular persons. They reverence Luther's Bible, for 
which the Emperor Leopold paid one hundred and fify pounds 
in order to display his partiality for the Lutheran party. But 
we are discussing the relics of Christians who were remarkable 
for sanctity displayed in the service of God; we need not con- 
cern ourselves with Lutheran relics. We read in one of the ear- 
liest Christian records, the account of the martyrdom of St. 
Ignatius (about 1 10 . a.d.) , that the saint's bones were wrapped 
in linen and preserved as a priceless treasure. St. Augustine 
tells us of many miracles that took place at the tombs of the 
martyrs, and similar marvels have recurred in every age of the 
Church. In the Bible we read that contact with the bones of 
Eliseus restored a dead man to life (4 Kings xiii, 21), and that 
when handkerchiefs and aprons belonging to St. Paul were 
brought to the sick, their diseases departed from them (Acts 
xix, 12). St. Peter's very shadow delivered the sick from their 
infirmities (Acts v, 15), and Luther himself asked, ^^Who 
can challenge the fact that God works miracles through the 
names of His saints?" (Unterricht, Wittenb. ed., VII, 7 b.) 

The editor of the Methodist periodical, the Christian 
Herald, tells a correspondent (Dec. 20, 19 11) that ^^ to assume 
that the day of miracles is past, would be to assume that the 
Divine power is shortened." 

We know of course that some relics are spurious or of 
doubtful authenticity, but this no more affects the venera- 
tion of relics than the fact that there is bad money inter- 
feres with the circulation of good coin. 

Protestants say that the common popular belief ascribes to relics, 
and to miraculous representations of our Lady, the same sort of power 
as the ancient Greeks and Romans ascribed to the statues of their gods. 
The Council of Trent forbade any one to assume that statues and pic- 
tures possess miraculous powers, but the authorities of the Catholic 
Church allow pilgrimages to statues of Mary in churches under their 
control. More than once eminent men in the Catholic Church, on 



128 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

hearing of miracles ascribed to such figures, have suggested, though 
unsuccessfully, that there might be some cooperation of diabolical forces. 
Nevertheless, the Popes have invariably taken churches containing 
such statues under their protection, and have gone so far at least as to 
say that the holy Mother of God permits her wonders to be seen there. 
Finally we are told that weeping, moving, and miraculous statues con- 
tinue to attract the poor and ignorant whose pastors fail to warn them 
against such things, and thousands still make pilgrimages in order to 
pray to them. 

We may perhaps express our regret that poor ignorant 
Protestants still continue to be encouraged by their pastors 
to look upon CathoUcs, not merely as idolaters but actually 
as devil-worshippers. Eminent Catholics have suggested — 
or so it is said — that the devil haunts places of pilgrimage, 
making statues of our Lady move and weep, and even working 
miracles in front of them. Yet we bend the knee before 
him and adore him present in the statues; we may not real- 
ize what we are doing, but we are practically acting like the 
pagans of old. Protestants persist in saying that the statue 
of our Lady at Einsiedeln can be set in motion by means of 
wires; the statement may be disproved a thousand times, 
but still they believe it. 

The great French preacher Bourdaloue {Pensees div, sur 
lafoi) speaks of people who oppose religion by raising objec- 
tions of this kind, continually copying and repeating the 
charges brought forward by others, and imagining that their 
assertions will efifect our downfall. Such people show, he says, 
their inability to venture upon a serious attack on religion. 
Some point of no importance, not affecting our religion as a 
whole, is singled out for attack; it may be some devotional 
exercise, some ceremony, or custom that attracts their 
notice, and that might and would be altered at once if it really 
endangered our faith in God and our hope in our Redeemer. 
Against this comparative trifle they expend all their efforts 
and eloquence. Our rehgion undoubtedly rests on a sure foun- 
dation, since men dare to attack it only from a safe distance. 

The Catholic doctrine regarding statues and pictures and 
the honour paid to them was enunciated very clearly by the 



THE VENERATION OF SAINTS 129 

Council of Trent, which forbade us to believe that there is in 
them anything divine, or any force for the sake of which we 
venerate them. The Council ordered us not to expect fa- 
voiurs from them nor to rely on them, but to give all the 
honour to those whom they represent. This is the doctrine 
of the CathoKc Church. Where are the weeping, moving, and 
wonder-working statues? Has any one ever seen them? 
Protestants accuse us of going in hundreds of thousands to 
visit them, but we Catholics should be at a loss to say where 
one such statue exists. 

Pilgrimages 

Pilgrimages are not ordered by the Church, but are the 
outcome of a sentiment common to mankind, and maybe 
productive of much good if they are performed in a proper 
spirit. 

It is a fact that there are places privileged by nature, and 
possessing health-giving waters and a salubrious climate. 
It is also a fact that there are places that exercise a kind of 
spiritual attraction, so that a Christian believes that he can 
pray there better than elsewhere, either because he can con- 
template some venerable picture, or because he will enjoy 
unusual calm and opportunity for recollection, or because 
he wUl find there some experienced counsellor to advise him. 

Do not lovers of art make pilgrimages to places where their 
artistic sense is stimulated and gratified? Has not the house 
formerly occupied by some great poet power to attract his 
admirers? Why may not Catholics be allowed to seek spirit- 
ual refreshment at their places of pilgrimage? And why can- 
not the authorities be trusted to take care that this ancient 
Christian custom does not degenerate into superstition? 
Whether Protestants believe it or not, God alone is the object 
of all worship at our places of pilgrimage, and it is scandalous 
that those, who profess to be Christians like ourselves, should 
speak of Catholics as idolaters. 

What does Luther say of the part played by the devil in 
his own work? He tells us that he licked more than one block 



I30 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

of salt with the devil (Sermon, '^Reminiscence"), and that the 
devil slept with him more frequently than his wife {Table 
Talk, f. 158). He learned how to abolish the holy Sacrifice 
of the Mass from no one but the devil himseK (Op. Jen., VI, 
f. 82). When the devil reproached him with his sins, Luther 
sent him away, saying, *^My dear devil, pray for me, and 
others in similar temptations shall also say, ^Holy devil, pray 
for us'" {Table Talk, 286, 287, Frankf., f. 289, 292). In one 
short work written against the Duke of Brunswick, Luther 
mentions the devil one hundred and forty-six times. 

Finally, before leaving the subject, we may perhaps point 
out that many who object to our veneration of saints are 
impelled to do so, not so much by zeal for Christ's honour as 
by a kind of jealousy due to the fact that Protestantism pro- 
duces no saints. Lavater, one of the shining lights of the 
Protestant Church, in writing to L. von Stolberg, a convert 
to Catholicism, says: '^ You have saints, I admit, and we have 
none, or at least none like yours." Gregorovius, a famous 
Protestant historian, says {Rom, Tagebuch): "They stand in 
admiration before those giants of Catholicism, the saints, 
but they do not ask how it comes to pass that Protestantism 
produces none. They suspect the mysterious depth and force 
of Catholicism, but they are afraid to come too near it; and 
so they pass it by with a timid and wistful glance. They 
gloat over the ages of decadence, for then they can look 
shocked as they speak of the corruption of the papacy, for 
nothing of the sort occurs in their midst. From the height of 
their shallow and pitiful moralism, devoid of all strength 
and stability, they pronounce their charitable judgment in 
which as a rule they declare that they will be quite satisfied 
and at ease, if only the Church is completely destroyed." 



VII. THE SACRAMENTS 

The Protestant Assertion. With regard to the Holy Eucharist, Protes- 
tants differ from Catholics on three important points, and condemn the 
papal doctrines on the subject of: transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of 
the Mass, and Communion in one kind. 

The Catholic Reply. These are not merely papal doctrines 
that are condemned by Protestants, but the plain teaching of 
Jesus Christ Himself to which all Christians adhered prior 
to the Reformation. The Reformers substituted their own 
himian views and doctrines, that are in many cases contradic- 
tory, for the word of God is handed down from antiquity. 
The Catholic Church simply accepts our Lord's words, 
^'This is my Body," whereas Protestants assign all sorts of 
artificial meanings to them. 

The Protestant Assertion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches 
with regard to transubstantiation that when the priest utters the words 
of consecration over the host and the chalice, the bread and wine are 
changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, so that their sub- 
stance is completely altered. This change is called transubstantiation; 
it accounts for the care and reverence displayed in touching the con- 
secrated host. 

The Catholic Reply. The Catholic Church simply accepts 
our Lord's words, *'This is my Body." She believes that by 
His almighty word Christ changed the bread into His holy 
Body and the wine into His holy Blood, and that He gave His 
Apostles power to do the same. Hence, when we adore the 
Blessed Sacrament, we certainly do not worship bread but 
Christ, who is truly, really, and substantially present imder 
the species of bread. 

The Protestant Churches teach, on the other hand, that at Holy Com- 
munion the true Body and Blood of Christ are received together with 



132 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

the bread and wine, as St. Paul says in i Cor. x, i6. Therefore in Holy 
Communion the bread and wine are not mere appearances, deceiving the 
senses, but they are true, visible signs with which the invisible gift of 
the Body and Blood of Christ is bestowed. If we receive them -^ith con- 
trite and beheving hearts, we obtain remission of sins and everlasting 
life (Matth. xxvi, 28; John vi, 51, 54). 

The Catholic Reply. As Christ did not say, ''This bread is 
my Body/' we cannot believe that what He held in His hands 
after saying ''This is my Body'' was still bread, but it was 
truly His Body under the form of bread. Luther's interpre- 
tation is contrary to the words of Holy Scripture, and to the 
behef of all Christendom before his time. St. Paul's words in 
I Cor. X do not admit of any other interpretation than that 
assigned to them by all Christians imanimously during the 
first fifteen centuries of the Church's existence. It is not the 
wine but the chalice that St. Paul calls "the communion of 
the blood of Christ." When he says that the bread which we 
break is the partaking of the Body of the Lord, he means the 
food that we receive; he does not mean that the substance of 
bread is still really present. In the same way the Catholic 
Church calls the consecrated host "bread of heaven," with- 
out meaning that it is really still bread. 

With regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass, Protestants think that the 
doctrine of the Cathohc Church is this: When the priest, by uttering 
the words of consecration, has effected the transubstantiation of the 
bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, he can offer them 
daily to God as an atoning sacrifice, and thus obtain forgiveness of sin 
both for the living and for the souls in purgatory. 

The Catholic Reply. No, the Church does not teach that 
the priest can sacrifice the bread to God after transubstantia- 
tion has taken place. The Catholic doctrine is that the priest 
at the altar does precisely what Christ did in the Cenaculum, and 
what He ordered His Apostles to do, viz., he pronoimces the 
words of consecration that effect transubstantiation, he offers 
a sacrifice and at the same time he prepares food for our souls. 

Protestants often make the following assertion: We read in the 
New Testament of thank offerings which all Christians, being a priestly 



THE SACRAMENTS 133 

nation, ought to make to Almighty God; but we read of only one aton- 
ing sacrifice, offered by our Lord when He died on the Cross (Hebr. ix, 
28). This sacrifice was made once for all, and therefore there is no 
need of any other, "for by one oblation He hath perfected for ever 
them that are sanctified" (Hebr. x, 14). Hence we cannot admit that 
there is any other sacrifice offered in the Church. 

The Catholic Reply. The Catholic Church has not insti- 
tuted another new sacrifice over and above the one atoning 
sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ, but she carries out His in- 
structions and continues His work as she has done ever since 
the time of the Apostles. Sacrifice is an essential part of this 
work, and we read that the Church of the New Testament also 
possesses an altar (Hebr. xiii, 10). Luther and his followers 
abolished the offering of Holy Mass, but their action does not 
affect the Catholic Church, and she continues to offer it be- 
cause Christ ordered her to do so and according to His in- 
stitution (cf. Luke xxii, 19). 

Protestants believe that the Catholic rule regarding the administration 
of Holy Communion is that the officiating priest may drink the conse- 
crated wine but may riot give it to the laity. 

The Catholic Reply. All that the Catholic Church teaches on 
the subject is that the laity, and also priests who are not offer- 
ing the holy sacrifice, are not bound by any divine obligation 
to communicate under both kinds. As Christ is present, 
whole and undivided, under one species, he who receives 
imder one kind only is not deprived of any grace necessary 
to salvation. The rule that Holy Communion should be 
administered only under the form of bread was laid down by 
the Catholic Church for practical reasons, and might be al- 
tered, provided that the faith in the Real Presence of Christ 
remained unaffected. 

Protestants argue that at the Last Supper our Lord said, "Drink ye 
all of this," hence they feel bound to adhere to this rule, believing that 
thus only they can receive the full benefit of this holy feast. The early 
Christians used to receive the chalice, and it was only by an unwarrant- 
able exercise of power and after many struggles that the Popes deprived 
the laity of this privilege. 



134 THE CBIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

The Catholic Reply, Our Lord's words were addressed only 
to the Apostles. Both our Saviour Himself (John vi) and St. 
Paul (i Cor. xi, 27) ascribed the beneficial effect of the Holy 
Sacrament to eating the Lord's Body alone. The early Chris- 
tians were undoubtedly accustomed to receive the conse- 
crated chalice, but they did not believe that thus only they 
could enjoy the full benefit of the sacrament. Conflicts arose, 
not because Catholics protested against being deprived of 
the chalice by the Popes, but because some people made the 
withholding of the chalice a pretext for their rebelHon against 
the Chiurch. 

COMMENTARY 

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject of the 
Sacrifice of the Mass and the transubstantiation that takes 
place during it, is fully in harmony with Holy Scripture and 
with oral tradition. Jesus Christ Himself spoke of His Body 
as given or sacrificed and of His Blood as shed for sinners. 
Hence even at the Last Supper He offered a true sacrifice in 
the Holy Sacrament. The Apostles taught that this was so, 
and there is still extant a work dating from the first or second 
century in which there is an allusion to the sacrifice on the 
Lord's day; cf. also St. Cyril of Alexandria and others. We 
still have sacrificial prayers dating from the earliest ages of 
Christianity, and in no Church before Luther's was the 
sacrifice ever denied, nor is there any record of any one 
having newly introduced the Sacrifice of the Mass. We are 
in complete conformity with the will of Christ, as it was 
understood and carried out by the Apostles. 
• The holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot detract from the 
merit of the Sacrifice of the Cross because the two sacrifices 
are essentially the same. The words of a preacher do not 
detract from the words of Christ, the sole Teacher of truth, 
for a preacher who is commissioned by Christ and teaches in 
His spirit, proclaims the same doctrine as Christ proclaimed 
on earth, which can reach us only through the agency of men. 
In the same way the sacrifice offered by the priest in the name 



THE SACRAMENTS 135 

and by the authority of Christ, brings vividly before us, chil- 
dren of a later age, the sacrifice offered by Christ, and the 
channel of graces once merited by Him is opened to us afresh 
every day. No Catholic has ever believed or taught that 
even the smallest grace for either the living or the dead is 
merited by the priest's actions at the altar of themselves. It 
is through the priest's agency that the words of Christ reach 
each individual in his congregation, and yet Christ remains 
the way, the truth, and the life; similarly it is also through 
the priest's agency that the one great atoning sacrifice of the 
New Testament, with all its wealth of grace, is brought into 
contact with individuals, although Christ is still the one high 
priest and the perfect sacrifice. We preach no other doctrine 
than Christ crucified, and we offer no other sacrifice than 
Christ, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles folly. 

Sacraments and Blessings 

Protestantism teaches that Christ instituted two sacraments, Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, in which He bestows on us invisible heavenly- 
gifts together with the visible signs. The Catholic Church, according to 
Protestants, looks upon sacraments in another light, and since the year 
1439 she has reckoned seven sacraments, as well as various forms of 
blessing (benedictiones) to which scarcely less efficacy is ascribed than 
to the sacraments themselves. The importance of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper is not sufficiently emphasized. 

A statement of this kind certainly suggests that Protestants 
value their two sacraments far more highly than Catholics 
value their seven. It does not convey a correct idea of the 
Catholic doctrine regarding the sacraments, and what is de- 
scribed as the Protestant theory is really the old Catholic 
belief, which Luther did his utmost to overthrow. Our defi- 
nition of a sacrament is: ^^A sacrament is an outward sign 
of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, by which grace is 
given to our souls." Luther on the contrary declared: ^^It is 
not true that there is in the sacraments any power to justify, 
nor that they are signs accompanied by any grace" (de capt, 
babyl., Wittenb., Lat. ed., II, 75). When the Pope clearly 
stated the Catholic doctrine on the subject of sacraments, 



136 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Luther said: "All the articles condemned by the bull are ac- 
cepted by me, and I maintain that every Christian, who is 
to avoid everlasting damnation, must accept these articles, 
and all that refuse to do so, ought to be looked upon as Anti- 
christs, and I now look upon them as pagans " (Wittenb., Ger- 
man ed., VII, 88). In the same dissertation against the papal 
bull (f. 97 b) Luther says: "There is no difference between 
old and new sacraments, and neither the one nor the other 
can convey God's grace; nothing but faith in God's signs and 
words gave grace in the past and still gives it now." It is true 
that Luther and Melanchthon, who followed him on this as 
on other points, subsequently expressed views approximating 
more closely to Catholic doctrine, and later Lutherans as a 
rule regarded the sacraments as channels of grace, although 
their Protestant prejudice did not allow them to acknowledge 
that they had returned to the Catholic doctrine. Conse- 
quently they are now continually obliged to discover points 
of difference, and first to misrepresent the teaching of the 
Catholic Church in order to be able to oppose her with teach- 
ing that was originally her own. 

It is not true to say that seven sacraments have been rec- 
ognized only since the year 1439. As early as 1140, Peter the 
Lombard wrote a detailed discussion of the seven sacra- 
ments which he regarded as dating from primitive times, 
and not a voice was raised in protest against his views. The 
Oriental Churches all recognized seven sacraments, and their 
unvarying tradition affords very strong evidence in support of 
them. Any one who can say that the Catholic Church has 
possessed seven sacraments only since the year 1439, shows 
his profound ignorance of Christian antiquity, unless indeed 
he is deliberately concealing and distorting the truth. 

Even if the acts of the Council of Florence, held in 1439, 
contained the earhest list of the seven sacraments, it would 
not at all follow that they had not existed long before. Has 
man possessed five senses only since the year in which, for the 
first time, these five senses were emmierated in their usual 
order? No one hitherto has been able to show that any one 



THE SACRAMENTS 137 

of the seven sacraments was instituted by some Pope, bishop, 
or council; in the whole history of the Church we hear of no 
quarrels or differences of opinion such as would inevitably 
have occurred if any one had attempted to introduce a new 
sacrament, for it would have had a deep effect upon practical 
life. To this subject, as to others, we may apply St. Augus- 
tine's well-known words {de bapt.y IV, 24): '^What the entire 
Church has always upheld, and what has not been introduced 
by Councils, is rightly regarded as handed down by the au- 
thority of the Apostles." 

It is a strange idea that the importance of Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper cannot be sufl&ciently emphasized if we 
have five other sacraments in addition to them. Our Saviour 
was certainly not bound to institute any particular number 
of channels of grace, but if He chose to institute seven in 
order to satisfy the various needs of a soul desirous of salva- 
tion, how can any man dare to reject some of these chan- 
nels and to attach peculiar importance to others? Is it, 
however, true that Protestants value Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper more highly than we do? If such were the case, we 
should have less reason to fear that Baptism, as adminis- 
tered by many Protestant ministers, is absolutely invalid. 
We Catholics well know the worth and sacred character of the 
various means of grace. Protestants need but to question 
any Catholic child, and they will at once be told which is the 
greatest and which the most indispensable sacrament, and 
which sacraments are intended for all men, which only for 
certain individuals. 

To say that we ascribe to the blessings {benedictiones) of the 
Church an efficacy equal to that of the sacraments, is to re- 
peat one of the old calimmies against things Catholic which 
Protestants either do not or will not understand. 

Protestants are taught that by benedictiones we do not mean merely 
prayers and blessings used on particular occasions, but more especially 
blessings pronounced over all sorts of things ecclesiastical and domestic, 
such as vestments, altar cloths, candles, water, salt, edibles, oil, etc., 
and they believe all this to be contrary to Holy Scripture. They main- 
tain that it is unscriptural to pray, when bread is blessed, that God 



138 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

will render it wholesome for body and soul, and make it a protection 
against all diseases and all assaults of our foes. It is imscriptural to 
conjure the oil, in the name of God, our Almighty Creator, that by its 
means all the violence of the enemy, all the hosts of the devil, all the 
attacks and apparitions of Satan may be expelled and overcome. It is 
unscriptural to ascribe to holy water power to drive out the devil and 
his angels, sickness and pestilence and evil passions, and to give this 
water to people that they may sprinkle it upon the sick, and their houses, 
fields, vineyards, and beds. All this is contrary to St. PauPs words, 
"All that is not of faith is sin" (Rom. xiv, 23). Experience proves that 
such practices, being of human invention, not only give rise to a false 
and dangerous kind of religion, but actually deter those who occupy 
themselves with them from attending to God's divine institutions. 

"All that is not of faith is sin," and whatever is not based 
on the word of God is not of faith and consequently an abuse ! 
We are inclined to ask in astonishment, Did not Christ bless 
bread and fishes? (Matth. xiv, 19.) Did He not give His 
Apostles power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils? 
(Mark iii, 15), and did not they use oil (James v, 14) and the 
laying on of hands? (Mark xvi, 18.) Were these not outward 
ceremonies? What is there unscriptural in asking God to 
bless the things in daily use and those who employ them, 
since "every creature of God ... is sanctified by the word 
of God and prayer" (i Tim. iv, 4, 5)? We consider it to be 
quite in keeping with God's ordinance, according to which the 
spirit of man, whilst it dwells in his visible body, can be hin- 
dered and helped by visible things. 

Thus Tobias was cured by the gall of the fish, and Naaman 
by washing seven times in the Jordan. In the primitive 
Church Christians were in the habit of sanctifying themselves 
and things in daily use, especially bread, water, and oil, by 
blessings and prayers in the name of God (e.g., Cyprian, Ep, 
90, n. 2; Basil., de spir. S., c. 27). 

The blessings of the Church do not prevent Catholics from 
attending to things that are of divine institution, viz., the 
holy sacraments. Who would refrain from going to confes- 
sion or Holy Communion because he uses holy water? Things 
blessed by the Church are intended to lead the faithful to 
God, the giver of all good, not to separate them from Him. 



THE SACRAMENTS 139 

They ought to be used in such a way as really to convey a 
blessing to both body and soul. 

As to the power exercised by the Church over evil spirits, 
we believe that it is quite scriptural (Matth. x, i, etc.). 
Some kind of formula and visible sign is indispensable to the 
Church, but she relies chiefly upon prayer in the name of 
Jesus Christ, and upon confidence in His promises and His 
abiding and living presence in His holy Church. 

Confirmation 

Protestants tell us that in their opinion Confirmation, though not 
instituted by Christ, is nevertheless an edifying Christian rite, so it is 
administered in their Church with most beneficial effects. The young 
who are being prepared to receive the Lord's Supper for the first time, 
are reminded by it of their baptismal contract, they pubHcly profess 
their faith, and are solemnly admonished and pledged to be loyal towards 
their Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter, and then, according to Apos- 
tolic precedent, they are blessed by the laying on of hands, whilst 
prayer is offered on their behalf by the clergy, congregation, parents, and 
godparents. There is no anointing, because God's promises apply to the 
prayer of the congregation and not to chrism. 

It seems strange that the Protestant Churches retain a cere- 
mony not instituted by Jesus Christ. They reject as a "farce 
and purely human device" (Luther, Wittenb., vi, 169 b) the 
Sacrament of Confirmation, known and administered in the 
Catholic Church from the beginning, and based on Holy 
Scripture and tradition, and yet they retain some kind of 
Confirmation, of which they can give no clear account (Lohe, 
Agenda, III, 49), but which they believe to be right and 
fraught with blessing. In all probability, the blessing that 
results from preparation for Confirmation, is the opportunity 
for misrepresenting everything Catholic, and for impressing 
on the minds of the young a lifelong abhorrence of the Cath- 
olic Church. From our point of view Protestant Confirma- 
tion is a meaningless ceremony, a caricature of the Catholic 
rite, and incapable of conferring any graces. Confirmation is 
either a sacrament, an outward sign, instituted by Christ, 
and really communicating inward grace, or it was not insti- 
tuted by our Lord, and in that case it requires no chrism or 



I40 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

laying on of hands, nor any outward sign whatever, and effects 
no communication of grace. Lutherans seem to suppose that 
it was not regarded as a sacrament until 1439; but we find 
it clearly mentioned in Holy Scripture, not as the prayer of 
the congregation, but as a means of grace through the laying 
on of the Apostles' hands. Tertullian and Cyprian, writing 
about the year 250, as well as other doctors of the early 
Church, mention its administration as a true sacrament, and 
everywhere prevailed the belief which St. Augustine expressed 
in the words: *^The Sacrament of Chrism is a sacrament re- 
sembling that of Baptism" {contra lit, Petil.y II, c. 104). 
Hence in Confirmation, the outward sign, viz., the anointing 
with chrism and the imposition of the bishop's hands, is as 
essential for imparting the special grace of the sacrament 
as is the pouring of water in Holy Baptism. 

Holy Orders 

The arguments against regarding Holy Orders as a sacrament are 
equally unconvincing. On this subject Protestants maintain: "Ac- 
cording to Holy Scripture, we acknowledge the office of preacher to be 
of divine institution, and it is the duty of preachers or pastors to make 
known the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to care for souls, 
and also to take part in church management, in providing for the poor, 
and in enforcing ecclesiastical discipline. Ministers are ordained for 
the discharge of these duties, that is to say, they are blessed by the 
laying on of hands and by prayer, and this custom dates from the Apos- 
tolic age and has always been used by the Church." 

The Cathohc Church on the other hand is reproached for regarding 
the preaching office as of no importance. A Catholic priest need never 
preach, but he must exercise his sacrificial and judicial functions; and 
according to Catholic doctrine he is a mediator between Christ and 
Christians. Our Lord, however, says to all: "He that cometh to me, 
I will not cast out; come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy- 
laden; Behold, I stand at the door and knock, and if any man hear my 
voice and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with 
him and he with me." 

Protestants declare that they cannot allow any one to deprive them 
of free access to Jesus Christ, nor to put obstacles in their way to Him. 

Here we encounter again the same sort of assertion that 
is altogether at variance with Luther's teaching. Protestants 



THE SACRAMENTS 141 

now acknowledge that Christ appointed special officials in 
His Church to carry on His own work to the end of the world, 
and yet they refuse to recognize the position of the Catholic 
priesthood. Tradition, which they persist in rejecting, ac- 
cepted a preaching office with which the administration of the 
sacraments and the care of souls are connected. Yet they 
are unwilling to recognize this office in the form in which it 
was instituted by Christ, and existed all over the Church 
until the time of Luther. Now Protestants want to have 
preachers, but no priests, such as have always existed from 
Apostolic times onwards in virtue of the Sacrament of Holy 
Orders. 

It is of course true that ordination dates from the Apostolic 
age and has always been practised in the Church, and that the 
clergy are consecrated by prayer and the laying on of hands. 
But it is hypocritical to represent matters to the young in such 
a way as to lead them to believe that the priesthood, which 
includes the office of preacher, still exists in the Protestant 
Church. Whence do Protestant ministers derive their com- 
mission to teach? What guarantee has any congregation that 
their minister preaches the pure and unadulterated doctrine 
of Christ, that he has authority to govern and direct them, 
and that he has been admitted to the sheepfold by the right 
door, and is not a thief or a robber? Would Christians in the 
time of the Apostles have recognized a Protestant minister 
as their lawful teacher and shepherd? Even in the first cen- 
tury St. Clenient of Rome spoke of the priesthood as a 
special state appointed by God, and distinct from the laity. 
St. Ignatius (ob. 107) was careful to emphasize the "cleft" 
between priests and laymen. St. Augustine tells us that in 
his time no one doubted that Holy Orders was indeed a sacra- 
ment; and at a much earlier date St. Cyprian describes the 
respect paid to priests. Any one who fancies that among the 
early Christians the clergy were preachers rather than 
priests, ordained to offer sacrifice and exercise judicial func- 
tions, should refer to the writings of the Fathers, and espe- 
cially to those of St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom on the 



142 TBE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

subject of the priesthood. He will then feel impelled to ex- 
claim in indignation: "Ye hypocrites, who pretend to pre- 
serve the Apostolic tradition, and have really destroyed it! 
You have deceived the people, whom you have robbed of 
both altar and priests, although the latter were the guardians 
of Christ's teaching and the administrators of the divine 
mysteries. You have sent men out with no authority to 
teach and direct the multitude. How can you venture to 
assert that the Catholic priests come between Christ and His 
followers, and make it difficult for the weary and heavy- 
laden to come to our Lord? If this were true, then Christ 
Himself closed the door of access, by sending forth Apostles 
and disciples to teach in His name. The priesthood does not 
interfere with the mediatorial office held by Christ alone; 
priests are His agents, appointed to lead all the weary and 
sinful souls to Him, and to prepare men's hearts for the in- 
fluence of divine grace so that they may 'open the door' when 
our Lord knocks. It is Christ Himself who teaches, baptizes, 
absolves, and sacrifices in the person of His priests." 

But, assuming that Christ really intended the faithful to 
find faith, grace, and salvation without any human inter- 
position, what have Protestant ministers to do? They do not 
profess to be mediators between Christ and His followers, 
for none may come between them. Do they not actually 
hinder people from having the "free access" to Christ that 
they profess to desire? 

Again, there is no justffication for the old accusation that 
preaching is of secondary importance in the eyes of a Cath- 
olic priest. At his ordination the bishop orders him to sacri- 
fice, bless, and preach; and the Council of Trent declared it 
to be the duty of all intrusted with the care of souls, to feed 
the flock of which they have charge by preaching to them 
the word of God (sess. 23, cap. i). Moreover the Council 
"commanded parish priests and those in charge of souls, to 
make a discourse frequently during Holy Mass, especially on 
Sundays and holy days" (sess. 22, cap. 8; sess. 24, cap. 4 
and 7). 



THE SACRAMENTS 143 

Samuel Laing says: 'Catholicism has certainly a much 
stronger hold over the human mind than Protestantism. The 
fact is visible and undeniable, and perhaps not unaccount- 
able/' And one reason, he tells us, is because '^in the Catho- 
lic Church the clergyman is more of a sacred character than 
it is possible to invest him with in our Protestant Church, 
and more cut off from all worldly affairs. The clergyman is 
entirely separated from individual interests, or worldly ob- 
jects of ordinary life, by his celibacy. This separates him 
from all other men. Be their knowledge, their education, 
their piety, what it will, they belong to the rest of mankind 
in feelings, in interests, and motives of action, — he, to a pe- 
culiar class. The Catholics, who receive the elements as 
transubstantiated by the consecration, require very naturally 
and properly that the priest should be of a sanctified class, 
removed from human impurity, contamination, or sensual 
lust, as well as from all worldly affairs, as far as human nature 
can be. . . . Our clergy, especially in Scotland, have a very 
erroneous impression of the state of the Catholic clergy. . . . 
The education of the regular clergy of the Catholic Church 
is, perhaps, positively higher than the education of the 
Scotch clergy" (Notes of a Traveller, p. 394). 

In virtue of his having received the Sacrament of Holy 
Orders, a Catholic priest is regarded by the faithful as possess- 
ing a solemn commission, and as being the minister of an in- 
fallible Church, and the messenger sent by Christ, the Son 
of God, whose word he makes known pure and unadulterated, 
just as our forefathers heard and believed it. 

What benefit do Protestants derive from 'Hhe ministry of 
the word"? Their preachers set forth the doctrine that 
they have discovered by personal study of the Bible or other 
books. The disastrous results of this method made them- 
selves felt even in the Reformation period, as DoUinger and 
Janssen have shown. Luther himself complained of his 
preachers that, with few exceptions, ''they knew nothing of 
the doctrine that a knowledge of Christ and His Father alone 
constitutes eternal life . . . although they all succeeded in 



144 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

abusing the Pope, monks, and priests'' (DoUinger, Refor- 
mation, I, 298). Does a more satisfactory state of affairs 
prevail at the present day? In the year 1890, Eberle, Prot- 
estant minister of Onolzheim, wrote regarding the sermons 
preached in the Protestant country churches in Wiirttemberg: 
^'I can safely assert that not a single article of faith or doc- 
trine of Protestantism is left unchallenged, and preached 
consistently from every pulpit. A horrible confusion of the 
most conflicting opinions is preached year after year to 
country congregations. It is scarcely possible to imagine a 
more outrageous entanglement of words and beliefs. What 
one man preaches to-day, will be denied by another to- 
morrow." 

What a description of Protestant worship! Sermons are 
necessary for the instruction and admonition of the people, 
and they are preached in every Catholic Church, but our 
worship is something more than a sermon, — it is perfect 
adoration of God in the Holy Sacrifice, 

The Sacrament of Penance 

Protestants object to many points in the Catholic doctrine regard- 
ing the Sacrament of Penance. They say that the Protestant Church 
also teaches the need of confession of sins to God, and imder certain 
circumstances also to man, in addition to requiring true contrition. 
They distinguish repentance from confession, in which either the con- 
gregation publicly, or an individual privately, acknowledges his guilt 
in the presence of a minister, and is by him exhorted to have contrition 
and faith and to be obedient in the sight of God. This kind of con- 
fession is regarded as useful, because it tends to arouse true contrition 
and to soothe the consciences of those in distress of mind, but it is not 
a sacrament; for our Lord instituted no particular form of confession 
in His Church, nor did He appoint any visible sign of the invisible grace 
conferred. 

How are we to understand the statement that under cer- 
tain circumstances confession made to men is a necessary part 
of penance? What are these circiunstances, and what is the 
object and effect of this confession? Either it is obligatory 
to confess at least grievous sins — and then it is a matter of 
divine commandment and not of coimsel — or it is quite im- 



THE SACRAMENTS 145 

necessary. The confession of sins is made either with the 
intention and expectation of obtaining forgiveness — and 
then the minister hearing it must have authority really and 
truly to absolve the penitent — or with the hope of receiving 
merely comfort and admonition from the man to whom the 
penitent reveals his state and discloses his shame, — and then 
this confession is simply a conversation, having no particular 
effect on the spiritual condition of the penitent. Confession 
is either an essential part of a holy sacrament, ordained by 
Christ and based on faith, or it is a mere mockery and human 
device. If it is the latter, it behooves a good Protestant to 
say: '^ Away with every form of confession, away with every 
hope and expectation of approaching more nearly to Christ 
by means of this external work than by means of faith alone.'' 
If, however, confession was designed by Christ, if it leads men 
to Him and confers grace, then it is a true sacrament, and it 
itself, united with the priestly absolution, is the outward sign 
of the holy Sacrament of Penance with which our Lord has 
connected His invisible grace. 

How clear and simple is the teaching of the Catholic Church 
on this point! She adheres to the words uttered by Christ to 
His disciples on the day of His resurrection: "Whose sins 
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins 
you shall retain, they are retained" (John xx, 23). She be- 
lieves what Holy Scripture records that our Lord said on this 
occasion, '^Receive ye the Holy Ghost." She believes that 
the Apostles, having received the Holy Ghost, were empow- 
ered to judge the sins of mankind in the place of God, and 
that their lawful successors exercise this judicial function 
beneficially under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Ever since 
the time of the Apostles, the Church has believed not only 
that confession is useful in order to arouse true contrition 
and to soothe the consciences of those in distress of mind, but 
also that it is something infinitely more than this, inasmuch 
as it is part of this sacrament instituted by Christ to be, as a 
rule, the only way of obtaining forgiveness for sins committed 
after baptism. 



146 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Protestant Confession of Sins 

The teaching of the Protestant Church seems most con- 
fused. It urges a sinner to confess his sins, and do volun- 
tarily something that cannot fail to be unpleasant, and the 
minister to whom he comes is also to do something, viz., to 
hear and comfort him. Yet these actions are not to be 
regarded as visible signs of an in\dsible grace, although some 
inward efl&cacy is ascribed to them. To arouse contrition 
and soothe the conscience of one in distress of mind are un- 
doubtedly interior acts; otherwise confession would be a mere 
mockery. We are told that under certain circumstances con- 
fession is a necessity, therefore it must have some effect upon 
the penitent's moral state, and it would seem that this elBFect 
must be a grace designed by and proceeding from Christ. 
Yet Protestants deny that it is anything of the kind. We 
have therefore in confession as practised in the Protestant 
Church, something external that is yet not an outward sign; 
something internal that is yet not an inward grace; some- 
thing divine that was yet not instituted by Christ. Protes- 
tants declare this kind of confession to be far superior to that 
practised in the Catholic Church, because it is rare and vol- 
untary. Ought we not to pity the multitude who have been 
robbed of priests invested with divine authority to forgive 
sins, of confession, and of the supernatural consolation im- 
parted by sacramental absolution, and who are now invited 
to have recourse to this wretched substitute that is extolled 
as a delightful refreshment? 

Can we wonder that it is a rare occurrence for any one to 
avail himself of this much lauded confession, whilst crowds 
throng around the confessionals in every Catholic Church? 
A sinner is not satisfied with himaan consolation and encour- 
agement; the one thing that he desires in confession is to 
be told: ^^Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven 
thee." He asks his confessor, as a Protestant theologian tells 
us (Vilmer, Theologie der Tatsachen, p. 90), ^'I want to know 
whether you have authority and power to forgive my sins." 



THE SACRAMENTS 147 

In answer to the all-important questions, ''Have the clergy 
power to forgive sins? When and by whom was this power 
bestowed upon each priest? " a Protestant can say nothing, 
but it is all perfectly simple to a Catholic. 

Hear the Anghcan Bishop Sparrow: ''To put away all 
doubt, let's search the Scriptures; look into the 20th of 
S. John, V. 23: 'Whatsoever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained.' 
Here is plainly a power of remitting sins granted to the priest 
by our Blessed Saviour. Nor can it be understood of remitting 
sins by preaching, as some expound it, nor by baptizing, as 
others guess, for both these, preaching and baptizing, they 
could do long before; but this power of remitting they re- 
ceive not till now, that is, after His Resurrection" {S par- 
row^ s Rationale^ p. 313). 

Canon Henry Liddon says in eflfect the same: "The 
power of remitting and retaining sins was given by our 
Risen Lord in the upper room with closed doors on the 
evening of the day of the Resurrection. In this way Jesus 
provided a remedy for the woimds which sin would leave 
on the souls of His redeemed" {Secret of Clerical Power, p. 
159). 

Compulsory Confession 

Protestants tell us that they practise confession voluntarily, whereas 
in the Roman Catholic Church it is compulsory. Pope Innocent III 
ordered every one to confess all his sins at least once a year to his own 
parish priest; but the Council of Trent decided that the confession of 
only mortal sins with all their attendant circmnstances, as far as a 
careful examination reveals them, is all that is necessary for salvation. 

We read in the writings of the Fathers that all without ex- 
ception, who had fallen into grievous sin after baptism, were 
required to confess their sins; it was a command, not a coun- 
sel. PfaflE, a Protestant historian, says: "It cannot be denied 
that private confession existed in the earliest ages. It would 
be impossible to describe it more clearly than Cyprian does" 
{orig, Eccles., p. 134). Now St. C3^rian was so far from be- 
lieving confession to be an optional thing, that he tells us 



148 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

how those who ventured to approach Holy Communion with 
impure hearts were at once punished by the avenging hand 
of God. That impurity of heart was due to neglect of con- 
fession appears from the fact that St. Cyprian contrasts 
with these sinners Christians, who frankly and with true con- 
trition confess to God's priests even the thought of sins not 
actually committed {de laps,, c. 28). St. Augustine, Tertul- 
lian, and Origen all speak of confession as strictly necessary 
for sinners. 

If Christ's Church really possesses authority to retain and 
to forgive sins, can she allow her children to avail themselves 
of her authority or not, just as they please? A good shepherd 
goes after his lost sheep, calling them and bidding them re- 
turn to the sheepfold; and this is how the Church acts when 
she commands her children to do penance. A hireling may 
wait until the lost sheep comes to him of its own accord. 
Protestants tell us that their clergy are bound, like our own, to 
be silent with regard to what is said imder the seal of confes- 
sion. Every one intrusted with a secret is of course pledged 
to silence; but a Catholic priest is also called upon to admin- 
ister a holy sacrament. 

Enough has been said to show that it was not Innocent 
III who first made confession compulsory. The Fourth Lat- 
eran Council, 'in complete agreement with the Council of 
Trent, ordained that all the faithful should conform to the 
ancient rule laid down by our Lord Himself, and make their 
confession at least once a year. The only difference between 
the enactments of the two Councils seems to be that one re- 
quires all sins, the other only mortal sins to be confessed. 
The discrepancy is only apparent and would puzzle no one 
familiar with Catholic doctrines. In the time of the Fathers, 
as in that of Innocent III, every Catholic knew what was 
required then, as it is now, for a good and complete confes- 
sion. If any one told him to confess all his sins, he would be 
quite aware that the speaker was alluding to all the sins that 
would debar him from salvation and involve the loss of sanc- 
tifying grace, in other words, to mortal sins. What he is 



THE SACRAMENTS 149 

bound to confess is every mortal sin, the number of times it 
has been committed, and not all the attendant circumstances 
but only such as aggravate or diminish its guilt. 

The Clergy and Auricular Confession 

Although Protestants speak sometimes of the beneficial results of 
confession, they are accustomed to ascribe various ill effects to the com- 
pulsory confession practised in the Catholic Church. They tell us: — 

(i) That auricular confession is the chief means whereby the clergy 
control the hearts of men. Hence Jesuit missionaries proclaim: "Con- 
fession or hell; there is no middle course." 

(2) That the confessional is often misused for the purpose of secur- 
ing a CathoUc education for the offspring of mixed marriages, contrary 
to a promise made previously, or in order to rouse opposition to a gov- 
ernment disliked by the hierarchy. 

(3) That many imhappy penitents have lost their innocence and been 
ruined, in consequence of indiscreet questions asked by a confessor. 
The Jesuit Gury is said to complain of this fact. 

(4) That penitents are tempted to satisfy the requirements of the 
Church outwardly by confessing trivial sins, whilst they refrain from 
mentioning the more grievous sins to which they are in bondage; or 
they fancy themselves free, after confession and absolution, to sin 
again, knowing that they can easily be absolved. It cannot therefore be 
denied that compulsory confession as practised in the Roman CathoHc 
Church is fraught with danger to souls. This is acknowledged by a con- 
scientious Catholic priest to be the case. 

(i) It is a truth founded upon divine revelation, that as a 
rule confession is the only means of saving a grievous sinner 
from hell. The Jesuits did not invent this theory, nor is it 
taught exclusively by them. Neither Jesuits nor any other 
priests hear confessions with the intention of thus obtaining 
influence over their penitents, but in order to preserve souls 
from hell. Auricular confession was not instituted to gratify 
any desire for power on the part of the clergy, and if any one 
really believes that it owes its origin to such a desire, what is, 
in his opinion, the object with which a Protestant minister 
hears a private confession, and gives advice and encourage- 
ment to erring and doubting hearts? 

(2) In the confessional a Catholic is frequently reminded 
of his duties, but no one can regard this as a misuse of con- 



ISO THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

f ession any more than we Catholics have a right to complain if 
a Protestant minister tries to prevent a mixed marriage. 
It is very strange that any one can suppose it to be the duty 
of a Catholic priest to say nothing at all, or even to express 
approval, if the children of Catholic parents are brought up 
outside the Church. 

It is absolutely false to assert that the confessional is used 
for stirring up resistance to authority. This is not the place 
whence rebels and rioters derive their turbulent ideas. 

(3) Father Gury, a Jesuit, was the author of a book for the 
guidance of confessors in the exercise of their difficult office. 
We owe him a debt of gratitude for warning priests against 
asking indiscreet questions and for pointing out the harm 
that such questions may cause. But it is foolish and unrea- 
sonable to condemn the confessional, which is a school of 
virtue and a source of grace, because individual confessors 
have been imprudent. It would be equally absurd to try to 
deter the sick from consulting a physician, because instances 
have occurred of patients suffering injury at the hands of an 
unskilful doctor. 

(4) It is a universally recognized fact that the best and 
most beneficial institutions are liable to misuse. Thus a 
frivolous Catholic may perhaps abuse the privilege of con- 
fession, but the sacrament could be answerable for this abuse 
only if it sanctioned it. This is, however, by no means the 
case; every Catholic child is taught that if forgiveness is 
to be obtained, it is not enough to confess one's sins, but 
the confession must be accompanied by true, supernatural 
contrition arising out of love of God, and also by an earnest 
purpose of amendment, otherwise no sin can be for- 
given. It is a fearful sacrilege to refrain from motives of 
false shame, or because one does not intend to renounce 
them, from all allusion to the grievous sins to which one is 
in bondage. 

Priests are bound to encourage their people to make a good 
use of the Sacrament of Penance, and in this way they will 
lead the faulty nearer to that perfection at which we all aim 



THE SACRAMENTS 151 

in this world but to which we cannot yet attain. Are all 
Protestants so perfect that none ever fall back into some sin- 
ful habit, even after making a public or private confession 
and receiving the Lord's Supper? Do none of them return 
year after year to their pastor to hear once more the tidings 
of forgiveness? Does such a Protestant derive greater help 
towards final perseverance than a Catholic in the tribunal of 
penance? It is unfair and dishonourable to find fault with the 
Catholic confessional and not to mention the unspeakable 
good that it achieves; although many impartial non-Catho- 
lics bear testimony to the great benefits resulting from it. It 
is enough to name Voltaire, the father of modern unbelief, 
and Rousseau, and men like Goethe, Wilhelm von Humboldt, 
Leibnitz, and Pestalozzi. Zezschwitz, a Protestant professor 
of theology, says: '^ We Protestants ought to leave off judg- 
ing unfairly, and looking at only one side of a question. . . . 
No one can ever have glanced at the better sort of Catholic 
books on morals, who fancies that all the debated points be- 
tween ourselves and Catholics can be settled simply by reviv- 
ing the old charges regarding the unscrupulous and disastrous 
use of the confessional. There are faults on both sides. I 
need only allude to confessors such as Carlo Borromeo and 
Phihp Neri, the latter a penitent of the Jesuits, and himself 
one of the most charming, liberal-minded, and sympathetic 
confessors who ever lived." 

^^ There is another circimistance connected with the in- 
stitutions of that Church," says Franfois Guizot, the great 
French historian, "which has not, in general, been so much 
noticed as it deserves. I allude to its penitentiary system, 
which is the more interesting in the present day, because, 
so far as the principles and applications of moral law are 
concerned, it is almost completely in unison with the notions 
of modern philosophy. ... It is sufficiently evident that 
repentance and example were the objects proposed by the 
Church in every part of its system of penance. And is not 
the attainment of these very objects the end of every truly 



152 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

pMlosophical legislation? Is it not for the sake of these very 
principles that the most enlightened lawyers have clamoured 
for Europe? " (History of Civilization,) 

Satisfaction for Sins 

Finally Protestants declare that all idea of satisfaction is altogether 
foreign to them, as Christ by His perfect obedience to God^s will and 
especially by His Passion and Death, made abimdant satisfaction for 
our sins. Catholic priests nevertheless impose penances intended partly 
to satisfy God's justice for sins committed, and partly to act as a safe- 
guard against future falls into sin. These penances consist chiefly in 
almsgiving, fasting, and repeating certain prayers. How Uttle importance 
is attached to the spiritual state of the person who performs these works 
is apparent from the fact that one can make satisfaction for another, and 
this is frequently done in return for payment of money. 

It is quite true that all idea of satisfaction is foreign to Prot- 
estantism, which looks only at the infinite satisfaction made 
by Christ whereby He merited all grace and the remission of 
all our sins and penalties. The Catholic Church is by no 
means blind to our Lord's atonement and thankfully ac- 
knowledges it, but she goes further, and instead of stopping 
short at the thought '' Christ suffered for us," she asks: 
'^Have I personally nothing more to do in order to make the 
merits of Christ my own? If I personally have sinned and 
offended God, and hope to be forgiven because Christ has 
made satisfaction for me, is that all which is required of me, 
or ought I to do anything myself in reparation for the wrong 
committed against God?" The answer to this question is 
perfectly clear: ^'If we suffer in expiation of our sins, we 
become like Jesus Christ who made atonement for us and 
from whom all our powers are derived. We rely, moreover, 
on the promise that if we suffer with Him we shall be glori- 
fied with Him. No satisfaction that we can offer for our sins 
is ours in the sense of being independent of Jesus Christ. We 
can indeed do nothing of ourselves, but we can do all things 
in Him who strengtheneth us. Man has in himself nothing 
whereof to glory, but all our glory is in Christ in whom we 
live, merit, and make satisfaction, if we bring forth worthy 



THE SACRAMENTS 153 

fruits of penance, fruits that derive all their efficacy from 
Him, that are by Him offered up to the Father and that are 
accepted by the Father for His sake" (Trident, sess., 14. 
8 cap.). 

Holy Scripture contains many instances of punishment in- 
flicted by God upon men whose sins were forgiven, and many 
also of satisfaction and penance by means of which a sinner 
sought to win the grace of God and to avert His punishments. 
The Prodigal Son asked to become one of his father's hired 
servants; the thought would never have occurred to him, 
had he not reasoned thus: "I owe some reparation to my 
father, although in his love he is willing to forgive me all the 
wrong that I have done him." The following remarkable 
passage was written by Luther (assert. 41, art, contra indulg, 
ad art. 5): "Our mother, the Christian Church, wishing to 
anticipate the punishments inflicted by the hand of God, chas- 
tizes her children with some sort of reparation that they may 
not fall under His rod. Thus did the Ninivites, by their 
self-imposed labours, anticipate the judgment of God. This 
volimtary punishment is necessary, for sins are punished 
either by us, or by men, or by God, although others [i.e.. 
Catholics] get rid of them altogether by means of indul- 
gences. If they were good shepherds they would rather im- 
pose penalties, and follow the example of the churches in 
anticipating God's judgment." 

Hence at this period, Luther thought that heavier penal- 
ties ought to be inflicted; he did not propose to abolish them 
and leave everything to Christ. Subsequently, however, he 
condemned all idea of satisfaction made by men, although 
even then he confessed that his views were contrary to those 
of the early Christians and of the majority of mankind. In 
his opinion, this erroneous theory of satisfaction had existed 
from the beginning of the world; many great men had done 
their best to overthrow it, but it would probably remain until 
the end of all things {Op, Jen., V, 816). 

Protestants believe that Catholics undertake for payment 
to make reparation for the sins of others, and this alleged 



1 54 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

practice is regarded as evidence of the slight importance at- 
tached to the disposition of the sinner when a penance is im- 
posed. The Council of Trent and all the doctors of the 
Church make it obligatory upon the confessor to adapt the 
penance that he imposes both to the magnitude of the offence 
and the disposition of the penitent. It would be quite im- 
possible to discover, anywhere in the world, a Catholic who 
had received payment for performing another's penance, or 
who had attempted to bribe another to perform the penance 
imposed upon him. Yet our antagonists do not hesitate to 
explain publicly how it is all arranged. They refer to a chap- 
ter in the Roman Catechism (II, 5, 72) which, however, does 
not apply to penances imposed on individuals for definite, 
personal sins. Alexander VII actually condemned the propo- 
sition (prop. 15) that one sinner might appoint some one to 
perform his penance in his stead. Least of all is there any 
allusion to payment of money. The Roman Catechism sim- 
ply proclaims the profound truth, firmly based on Holy 
Scripture and on the life of the early Church, that by means 
of volimtary works of penance, or willingly endured suffering, 
one Christian can help another. Unless this were true no 
one could intercede for sinners, but it follows necessarily from 
the Communion of Saints. In proof of it, reference may be 
made to Abraham's prayer for the people of Sodom, to St. 
Paul's exhortation to his converts that they should ^^bear 
one another's burdens" (Gal. vi, 2), and to a panegyric quoted 
by Eusebius (V, 2) and uttered by the clergy of Lyons over 
the martyrs of that city: "They were not filled with arro- 
gance towards the fallen, but with motherly compassion they 
shared with others that wherein they abounded, and shed 
many tears for them before God." Eusebius records elsewhere 
(III, 24) that St. John the Apostle exclaimed to a young 
man who had committed a robbery: "I will make satisfac- 
tion for thee; thou hast still hope of safety; for thy sake I 
will gladly welcome death, even as our Lord died for us." 
Moses offered to be a scapegoat for the people of Israel (Exod. 
xxxii, 32), and St. Paul even went so far as to wish to be 



TEE SACRAMENTS 155 

anathema from Christ for the sake of his brethren (Rom. 
ix, 3). Any one who reflects over these passages will find 
no diflSculty in understanding the sentence in the Roman 
Catechism. 

Matrimony 

Protestants tell us that they regard matrimony as an ordinance 
instituted by God, but not as a sacrament, because it can be contracted 
outside the Church. Christ did not alter or add to this ordinance, 
but reinforced it and promised special blessings to married Christians. 
Hence this state is called that of "Holy Matrimony,'' and according 
to the procedure of the early Church it ought to be entered upon before 
Christian witnesses and with prayer and exhortation from the word of 
God. 

The Catholic Church calls matrimony a sacrament, but forbids it 
to her priests, thus showing that she looks upon it as an inferior state. 
In the Bible we read that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, 
and that it is a devilish doctrine to forbid men to marry. The Chris- 
tian Church adhered to scriptural teaching on this subject for a thousand 
years, and it was not until the eleventh century that compulsory celi- 
bacy was introduced by Pope Gregory VII. 

Statements of this sort require careful consideration. 
Let us ask, in the first instance, what the Catholic Church 
thinks of marriage, and what Luther's views were on the 
subject. Which doctrine harmonizes best with Holy Scrip- 
ture and with the opinions of Christian antiquity? The 
Catholic belief with regard to marriage is this: God Him- 
self instituted it in Paradise as an indissoluble bond uniting 
one man and one woman. Jesus undoubtedly altered and 
added to this ordinance and through His Apostles promised 
peculiar blessings to married people, for He raised marriage 
to the dignity of a real sacrament. That our Lord intended 
to make it something more than it had become among both 
Jews and pagans is plain from His words in Matth. xix, 3, 
etc., Mark x, 2, etc., Luke xvi, 18, and especially from 
St. Paul's instructions in i Cor. vii and Ephes. v. The 
Apostle regarded even the vocation to the married life as 
a special grace of God (i Cor. vii, 7); he did not consider 
the marriage of unbelievers as on a level with Christian 



IS6 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

marriage (v. 13), but taught that an unbelieving husband 
could be sanctified by his Christian wife and vice versa 
(v. 14). He compares the marriage bond with the union 
existing between Christ and the Church (Ephes. v, 29), this 
union being her actual source of grace, and he calls this union 
a great sacrament (or mystery) adding, ^'I speak in Christ 
and in the Church'' (v. 32). How could St. Paul say that 
marriage resembles Christ's union with the Church unless 
grace was communicated by means of it? If Protestants 
examined more carefully the view taken of matrimony in the 
early Church, they would find that it was always regarded 
as a sacrament. This can be easily proved from the writings 
of TertuUian, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine (cf. Schanz, 
Sakramentenlehre, pp. 726-738). 

The Catholic Church undoubtedly considers the married 
state holy. Did Luther value it equally or even more 
highly? Let us quote his own words on the subject: ^^ Mar- 
riage does not concern the Church at all, but is outside her 
sphere, being a temporal and worldly thing" (Walch, XXII, 
1748; XII, 1721; VII, 668). ^'Know that marriage is an 
external, bodily thing, like any other worldly business" 
(Jen. ed., II, 153). 

Of the enduring character of this sacrament in the Catholic 
Church, Goethe notes in his Autobiography that '^Here a 
youthful pair give their hands to one another, not for a 
passing salutation, or for the dance; the priest pronounces 
his blessing upon the act, and the bond is indissoluble." 

A youthful pair? What does Lecky say in this regard? 
"The nearly universal custom of early marriages among the 
Irish peasantry has alone rendered possible that high stand- 
ard of female chastity, that intense and zealous sensitive- 
ness respecting female honour, for which . . . the Irish poor 
have long been prominent in Europe" (European Morals, 

11., 153). 

The Catholic Church has always insisted upon the unity 
of the marriage bond, adhering thus to Christ's teaching that 



TEE SACRAMENTS 157 

God instituted marriage in order to unite one man and one 
woman (Matth. xix, 3, etc.), and that in His kingdom this 
unity must be restored and maintained. Luther, on the 
contrary, allowed Count Philip of Hesse to take a second 
wife during the lifetime of his lawful spouse. The preacher 
who performed the ceremony had three wives, all living, 
and in his discourse he tried to soothe the bride's conscien- 
tious scruples by telling her that bigamy had hitherto been 
forbidden among Christians in consequence of their misun- 
derstanding Holy Scripture. Luther himself declared several 
times in his sermons that a man was not forbidden to have 
more than one wife; he did not himself recommend polygamy 
but could not prohibit it (Janssen,^/^ meine Kritiker, II, 91). 

Indissolubility of Marriage 

The Catholic Church insists upon the indissolubility no 
less than upon the unity of marriage. She has always re- 
spected our Lord's words: ^^What God hath joined together, 
let no man put asunder" (Matth. xix, 6); ^^ Whosoever 
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and 
shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall 
marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (v. 9). 
These words sanction separation from an adulteress, but not 
the remarriage of either party. The disciples clearly under- 
stood them in this sense, for they exclaimed: '^ If the case of a 
man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry" (v. 10). 
In Mark x, 2-12 and Luke xvi, 18 our Lord absolutely forbids 
any severance of the marriage bond. Should any doubt 
still linger in the mind of one who has studied these pas- 
sages, it cannot fail to be removed by reference to i Cor. vii, 
10, II, where St. Paul writes: "To them that are married, 
not I, but the Lord commandeth that the wife depart not 
from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain un- 
married. . . . And let not the husband put away his wife." 
The Catholic Church has invariably upheld this doctrine. 
It is notorious that Henry VIII, King of England, requested 
Pope Clement VII to divorce him from his lawful wife. The 



158 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Pope went as far as he possibly could go in order to concili- 
ate the king, enduring all sorts of abuse and reproaches, 
but he could not surrender the sanctity of marriage, and 
defied Henry rather than disobey God. To his intense sor- 
row the Holy Father saw the king and his kingdom fall 
away from the faith, but he could not, on that account, per- 
mit what the Gospel forbade. How different was Luther's 
line of action towards Philip of Hesse! He taught and pub- 
licly preached opinions utterly at variance with the Biblical 
and early Christian views on marriage. Not only did he 
sanction the divorce on his own authority, and in opposition 
to Holy Scripture, but from the pulpit he defended princi- 
ples regarding married life, such as had never been heard 
before in any Christian country, and he even declared adul- 
tery to be permissible. Evers, a Protestant pastor who was 
subsequently reconciled to the Catholic Church, says of 
Luther: ^^Is it possible that a man, capable of propounding 
such shamelessness to the people, in his public sermons and 
writings, can have been the instrimient, chosen by God, for 
the reformation of the Church?" (Katholisch oder Proies- 
tantisch, p. 408). 

The Rev. A. K. Blois, of the First Baptist Church, Chicago, 
said: ^^The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church is ad- 
mirable. It is better to be too strict than too loose in all 
questions of morals, and especially in this [divorce] question, 
which so vitally affects both pubHc and private welfare." 

Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix, Episcopalian, rejoices that "Roman 
Catholics — all honor to them! — allow no divorce a vinculo^ 
following literally the command of our Lord Jesus Christ" 
(Lectures on the Calling of a Christian Woman). 

At one moment we are told that the Catholic Church sets 
too high a value upon matrimony by regarding it as a sacra- 
ment, at another we hear that she degrades it by forbidding 
her priests to marry. This is another of those contradic- 
tions to which Protestants are prone. The Catholic doctrine 
on the subject is very simple: In the Church of Christ mat- 
rimony is raised above the purely natural order, and becomes 



THE SACRAMENTS 159 

a means of grace. It does not, however, follow that the 
married state is the highest in the kingdom of Christ. On 
the contrary, it is surpassed by voluntary virginity, preserved 
through love of God, according to the teaching and example 
of our Lord Himself and His Apostles. What for every 
Christian is a matter of counsel (cf. Matth. xix, 12 and i Cor. 
vii, 7, 8), is imposed by the Church as a binding obligation 
upon her priests, since their office requires of them a higher 
degree of perfection. 

The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage, and fol- 
lows St. Paul (i Tim. iv, i) in calling such prohibition "a 
doctrine of devils." No one ought to write a treatise on re- 
ligion without knowing to what subjects these devilish doc- 
trines refer. According to them, all marriage is forbidden, 
and the Catholic Church teaches nothing of the kind. But, 
on the other hand, she does not command any one to marry, 
and in this respect she differs from Luther, who declared 
perpetual chastity to be impossible and continence to be a 
crime. Schon, a Protestant, in writing of Luther, says: 
''He was probably the first, since the foundation of the Chris- 
tian Church, to teach that man was a slave to his sexual 
impulses, and that the commandment to marry was not only 
binding upon every one, but of far stricter obligation than 
the commandments in the Decalogue which forbid murder 
and adultery.'' 

Moreover, it behooves every theologian to understand what 
St. Paul meant by saying that a bishop should be the husband 
of one wife (i Tim. iii, 2). If he meant that a bishop ought to 
be a married man, why did he not himself take a wife in- 
stead of wishing that all were as he was? If it is a diabolical 
doctrine to require those who wish to serve Christ perfectly 
and feel called to this service to remain unmarried, how could 
St. Paul extol virginity as the higher way? It is absolute 
hypocrisy to try to destroy the old Christian doctrines, to 
strip marriage of its supernatural character and make it a 
purely natural business, like agriculture or carpentry, and at 
the same time to blame the Catholic Church for teaching the 



i6o THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

doctrines of devils, whereas within her fold alone marriage 
is still regarded as a holy state on which pecuhar blessings 
are bestowed, and as a means for attaining to the super- 
natural end of man. We have no fear that the Apostles 
will ever judge us for possessing diaboHcal doctrines; they 
will rather discover such things elsewhere; for there are 
some theories regarding marriage which St. Paul would 
certainly not acknowledge to have been taught by Christ 
and himself. 

Compulsory Celibacy 

Protestants are taught that in the eleventh century Greg- 
ory VII introduced compulsory celibacy, although for over 
a thousand years the Church had followed St. Paul and 
condemned it as a doctrine of devils. It ought not to be 
necessary at the present day to refute this statement, but 
it recurs with obstinate persistency. When the disciples 
exclaimed, '^It is not expedient to marry,'' our Lord did not 
explain that, on the contrary, they all ought to take to 
themselves wives, but remarked that some were volun- 
tarily continent for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. 
This is recorded in Holy Scripture, as also is St. Paul's 
recommendation of celibacy. It is certain, too, that from 
the beginning many Christians have led chaste and virginal 
lives in order to serve God better. Was it not quite natural 
for the Church to require her priests to lead the life which 
all Christians regarded as peculiarly pure and perfect, and 
which many adopted of their own free will? Pilatus, a Prot- 
estant whose works have done much to overthrow many 
Protestant prejudices, says {Quos ego, 17 and 18): 'Xelibacy 
was not introduced by the Pope, but was due to the priests' 
desire for the union with God resulting from conquest of 
the passions." In the primitive Church, where baptism 
was administered generally only to adults, it was impossible 
to ordain none but unmarried men to the priesthood. If 
such restrictions had existed, where could St. Paul and St. 
Timothy have found men fit to be priests and bishops? But 



THE SACRAMENTS i6i 

even in the Apostolic age St. Paul insisted that no one who 
had been married more than once should be consecrated 
bishop. We never hear of any priest marrying after his ordi- 
nation, although many rules were made on the subject such 
as those of the Council of Neocaesarea in 314 (can. i), ac- 
cording to which a priest was to be degraded if he took a wife. 
The Second Council of Carthage in 390 declared the celi- 
bacy of the clergy to have been ordered by the Apostles 
themselves. In the tenth century the old law of the Church 
was frequently disregarded, and consequently Gregory VII, 
like several of his predecessors, drew attention to it and in- 
sisted upon its observance. In this way he prevented any 
further decay of ecclesiastical discipline and order, and we 
owe him a debt of gratitude for what he did, but celibacy 
was not introduced by him. It would be possible to charge 
the Catholic Church with violence and compulsion only if 
she forced men into the priesthood, and then constrained 
them to lead a celibate existence. Priests are not, like re- 
cruits for the army in some countries, obtained by means of 
conscription. Before a bishop confers the subdiaconate, he 
says: "You are still free to adopt a secular calling if you 
desire, but when you have received this order, you will no 
longer be able to draw back, but you will serve God, and with 
His help observe chastity. Therefore reflect, whilst there is 
yet time." Every Catholic priest can say: "Was I not at 
liberty to use my freedom? To whom was I bound, when I 
voluntarily remained unmarried?" He avails himself of 
true Apostolic freedom, when of his own accord for Christ's 
sake and in order to save his soul, he renounces rights pos- 
sessed hitherto. Luther professed to combat celibacy be- 
cause of his regard for morality, but we can form some idea 
of his real opinions from a passage in a letter, where he says 
(Werke, 29, 17, etc.): " Even if one or two, or a hundred or 
a thousand councils decided that the clergy might marry, he, 
Luther, would rather put up with one who had been unchaste 
all his life, than with one who took a wife after such a de- 
cision had been made. He wished to command as God's 



i62 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

representative and to give advice, so that no one on the 
strength of such a decision should take a wife and endanger 
his salvation, but rather let every one live in chastity, and 
if that is impossible, let him not despond in his sin and 
frailty, but appeal to God's mercy/' Is this the language 
of a serious man, concerned about truth and justice, or is it 
not rather that of a child determined to do what his mother 
has forbidden? 

"The chaste influence of the celibate clergy of Ireland,'^ 
says the anti-Irish Froude, "kept the peasants wonderfully 
moral. Wealthy men may sleep in Ireland with unlocked 
doors with a security that no police in New York or London 
could secure, so absolutely honest are the people. Offenses 
of impurity, also, are almost entirely unknown'' {New York 
Times, Oct. 25, 1872). 

Extreme Unction 
Protestants dispense altogether with Extreme Unction, and ask 
where in the Bible we discover that Satan is to be driven out of the 
oil, and that the d3dng are to be anointed with oil thus exorcised? Where 
are we promised that anointing of this kind leads to the forgiveness of 
sins committed through the sense of sight, etc. The passage in James 
V, 14 refers to the sick and their recovery, not to the dying. Anoint- 
ing with oil is a very ancient remedy, but the chief importance is at- 
tached to the prayer of faith. In primitive times the dying relied 
only on the consolation supplied by Holy Commimion, which was called 
the "Viaticimi" and the "medicine of immortality"; and in the Prot- 
estant Church it still continues to be their last comfort. 

We have here an ingenious attempt to lay stress upon 
side issues and disregard the chief point. Allusion is made to 
Holy Communion, but the real question is: Did Christ 
intend the dying to receive, besides Holy Communion, an- 
other means of grace to console and cure them in their hour 
of need? The Bible and tradition both answer this question 
in the affirmative. Leibnitz, a Protestant, says : ^^ No lengthy 
discussion of Extreme Unction is required. The custom of 
administering it finds support both in Holy Scripture and in 
the Church's interpretation of the same, on which Catholics 
rely with assurance.'' How and when did Extreme Unction 



TEE SACRAMENTS 163 

come to be regarded as a sacrament, if it was not always 
recognized as such in the Church? No one can oflfer any 
explanation. 

Protestants ask contemptuously where, in Holy Scripture, 
we discover that Satan is to be driven out of the oil, and 
that the dying are to be anointed with oil thus exorcised. 
The Catholic Church knows that there are in the Bible sev- 
eral references to the curse under which the whole world 
was laid on account of the sins of mankind, and St. Paul 
says that every creature groaneth for deliverance from it 
(Rom. viii, 21, 22). Moreover, we read much about Satan 
and his influence, and find that Christ, who triumphed 
over Satan, gave His Apostles power over evil spirits (Matth. 
X, i). Therefore, when the Church requires the water used 
in Baptism and the oil employed in Extreme Unction to be 
previously blessed, and when she includes exorcisms in the 
prayers read on these occasions, she is doing nothing con- 
trary to the word of God. The Sacrament of Extreme 
Unction, however, exists independently of the forms pre- 
scribed by the Church for blessing the oil used in its 
administration. 

Another question asked by Protestants is: *' Where are 
we promised that anointing of this kind leads to the for- 
giveness of sins committed through the sense of sight, etc.?" 
Surely those who ask this question cannot read, for the an- 
swer stands clearly in St. James' epistle: '^If he [the sick 
man] be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." Does not this 
satisfy them? The statement that the passage in St. James v 
refers not to the dying, but to the sick and their recovery, 
is unintelligible, for are not the dying sick? Or do we admin- 
ister Extreme Unction only to those of whose restoration to 
health no hope remains? Does not every catechism contain 
a warning not to delay too long the administration of this 
sacrament, since it is intended to benefit the sick in body as 
well as in soul? Protestants are taught that anointing with 
oil is a very ancient remedy, and that the chief importance 
is attached to the prayer of faith. It is, of course, quite true 



i64 TEE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

that oil is a very ancient and usual remedy, just as water 
is the usual means of cleansing, and bread the usual form 
of nourishment. Oil, water, and bread serve these purposes 
in the realm of nature, but when, in conformity with divinely 
given instructions, the prayer of faith is added to them, they 
become outward signs of supernatural grace in the holy 
sacraments. Neither water, nor bread, nor oil alone, nor 
even the prayer of faith alone, effects what our Lord intended 
the sacraments to do. The word of God undeniably contains 
plain allusions to oil, to the prayer of faith, and to forgive- 
ness of sins, as well as to restoration to health. 

Finally, Protestants maintain that in the primitive Church 
the sick relied solely upon the consolation derived from Holy 
Communion. Apart from the fact that the sick in those days 
received the real sacrament of Holy Communion and not the 
Protestant Last Supper, there is abundant testimony in very 
ancient writings proving that Extreme Unction was always 
regarded as a sacrament, and that no innovations were made 
in its administration. Allusions to it occur in the works of 
St. Irenaeus (died 207) and of Origen (died 254). 

Baptism 

Protestants maintain with regard to Holy Baptism that the only 
difference between themselves and Catholics is that the latter believe 
original sin to be completely removed by this sacrament, whereas 
Protestants think that our natural sinfulness remains. 

This difference has already been discussed, and it is un- 
necessary to say more here than that we are very thankful 
that Luther retained the old Catholic doctrine on the sub- 
ject of Baptism, and carried with him into Protestantism a 
remnant of genuine Catholicism, which seems there rather out 
of place. Luther thought, however, that any one who chose 
might refuse to be baptized. The fact that true Baptism 
remains in the Protestant Churches is the cause of salvation 
to countless souls, especially to those of children. Unhappily 
the sacrament is not always validly administered, for Protes- 
tants do not always baptize in the name of the Blessed 



TEE SACRAMENTS 165 

Trinity, nor are they careful that the water should flow. 
There are some ministers who openly acknowledge that they 
wish to see Baptism abolished. 

The Holy Eucharist 

On the subject of the Holy Eucharist, Protestants refer to tran- 
substantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the withdrawal of the 
chaHce from the laity, as the three points of Catholic doctrine to which 
they take exception. 

The Protestant doctrine is, we are told, that in the Holy Eucha- 
rist they really receive the Body and Blood of Christ together with 
the blessed bread and wine, but the sacramental species continue really 
to be bread and wine and do not merely appear to be such. In this be- 
lief they follow the teaching of St. Paul (i Cor. x, 16). They think 
therefore that in the Bible two elements, one earthly and one heavenly, 
are distinguished, although they are united in a most intimate and incom- 
prehensible manner. 

The average Protestant has no idea how difficult it was 
for Luther to discover any foundation for this theory. He 
accepts what he is taught and believes that in the Holy 
Eucharist he receives bread and wine as well as the Body and 
Blood of Christ, whilst Catholics adhere to an unscriptural 
doctrine, and believe that Christ alone is present under the 
species of bread and wine. 

Luther would have liked to give the words used by our 
Lord at the Last Supper a figurative interpretation, but they 
seemed too clear and forcible for this to be possible. There- 
fore he interpreted them literally, but abandoned all idea 
of transubstantiation. How he reconciled the absence of 
transubstantiation with the Real Presence of Christ is quite 
incomprehensible, nor can any one follow Luther's own argu- 
ments. Hence, as a rule, all living faith in the Real Presence 
has disappeared, giving place to a theory which would not 
have seemed hard even to the Jews in the synagogue at 
Capharnaum. 

Transubstantiation, as taught by the Catholic Church, 
is a deep mystery, but in believing it we do at least know what 
we believe and why we believe it. We know that we are not 



1 66 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

accepting the view of a professor who has imagined something 
that none of the early Christians ever heard of, but we are 
holding fast to the tradition of centuries based on our Lord's 
own words. If the Catholic doctrine regarding the Holy 
Eucharist were erroneous, we should surely know with whom 
and when it originated, as before that time men must have 
believed something else. But this is certainly not the case; 
the same doctrine can be traced back to the Cenaculum in 
Jerusalem and to the Last Supper, when our Lord uttered the 
words, "This is my Body.'' 

By his word a king can change a death warrant into a re- 
prieve, so that instead of being the harbinger of sorrow and 
death it becomes the bearer of joy and life, yet the paper 
on which he writes is unchanged. A dog cannot distinguish 
any difference in the docimient, as it was when presented to 
the monarch and as it is after passing through his hands; 
but a himian being perceives an infinite change effected by 
the king's words. In the same way, by the supernatural 
light of faith, we recognize the transubstantiation, which is 
imperceptible to our natural reason, relying as it does upon 
our senses. We believe that through the action of Christ's 
words, the outward form belonging to the substance of ordi- 
nary bread now clothes the living Bread, which came down 
from heaven in order that all who eat thereof may live for- 
ever. In other words the substance of the bread is changed 
into the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the outward 
qualities or species of bread remain unaffected, just as the 
paper remains the same, whether it conveys a death warrant 
or a pardon. 

St. Paul says nothing contrary to the unvarying belief in 
transubstantiation. He speaks, it is true, of the Holy Eu- 
charist as bread, but his meaning, which is more important 
than the actual word, is clear (i Cor. x, i6, 17; xi, 26, 28). 
There can be no doubt as to the doctrine of the Catholic 
Church, and yet she too calls the consecrated host "bread 
of heaven," " angels' bread." Moreover, the Greek word used 
by St. Paul signifies food rather than bread. Before the 



THE SACRAMENTS 167 

time of Luther, no one understood St. Paul to mean what 
Luther supposed. On the contrary, he has always been, 
quoted in support of the Catholic doctrine, since he as- 
serts that the chalice of benediction, which we bless, is the 
communion of the Blood of Christ, and the bread, which 
we break, is the partaking of the Body of the Lord. 

It is here impossible to do more than refer to one or two of 
the countless witnesses to this belief. St. Justin (died 166) 
says: '^ We are taught that this consecrated food is the flesh 
and blood of the Son of God. Since Christ Himself said of 
the bread, This is my Body, who can doubt the fact? and 
since He said. This is my Blood, who would venture to sup- 
pose that it is not His Blood? He changed water into wine; 
why should we not believe that He changes wine into blood? " 
Such was the doctrine taught in the fourth century by St. 
Cyril to his catechumens in Jerusalem. All the regulations 
for public worship in the early Church refer to transubstan- 
tiation, and the Russian Church retains this doctrine as an 
article of faith. 

Transuhstantiation 

We are told by Protestants, moreover, that the Catholic doctrine 
regarding transuhstantiation contains an unscriptural statement to the 
effect that in the mass priests by means of their miraculous power create 
God, the Creator of all things (Bohmer, Jus Eccles, protest,, V, 192). 

Divinely revealed truth contains profound mysteries which, 
when stated in himian language, are apt to be distorted and 
exaggerated or even ridiculed. Hence the early Christians, 
in obedience to our Lord's exhortation not to throw pearls 
before swine, were careful to keep their sacred mysteries 
secret from the heathen. But any one who undertakes to 
teach young Protestants the doctrinal points distinguishing 
Catholicism and Protestantism ought first to ascertain what 
our doctrines really are. When any one hears that in the 
mass priests profess to create the Creator, he naturally sup- 
poses that Catholic priests set themselves above God who 
created them. But this is a complete misrepresentation. 



1 68 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

The priest does not create the Creator, but the word of Christ 
changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. The 
priest may be the agent of this mysterious transaction, but 
he is acting simply as Christ's servant and in accordance 
with His instructions. It is Christ who baptizes, Christ 
who preaches, Christ who absolves, and Christ who effects 
transubstantiation, — not the priest. It is not the men de- 
signing and printing bank notes who change the worthless 
paper into money; it is the will of those who employ these 
workmen. In the same way God's word does everything 
and a priest nothing unless he be divinely commissioned. 
Perhaps we may be permitted to ask who creates the Cre- 
ator in the Protestant rite. Protestants are taught that 
Christ is really received in Holy Communion, but how does 
He become present? Does He come when the minister blesses 
the bread and wine, and utters over them the words of insti- 
tution? In that case the minister possesses greater powers 
than other men enjoy and must be a real priest, which he 
does not claim to be. Or does the recipient of the bread and 
wine do anything which causes him to receive Christ to- 
gether with them? In that case, what would be the good of 
any minister, or of any rite, and where in the Bible can we 
find such power promised to every individual, for if this 
were true each man would be able to bless and consecrate? 

Protestants allege further that our doctrines regarding the consecrated 
host are unscriptural, for we teach that divine honour should be paid 
it, and that Christ with His sacred Body, divinity, and humanity, can 
be kept in the monstrance and carried in procession on Corpus Christi 
and other festivals. Corpus Christi was instituted by Urban IV in 
1264, and the Council of Trent ordered it to be observed in order to 
wound, humiliate, or convert heretics and to celebrate the triumph of 
CathoHcism over them. It is notorious that ever since the memorable 
celebration of the feast at Augsburg in 1530, Protestants have on this 
day been exposed to much ill treatment and many insults, in consequence 
of which they were warned not to take part in the festival from motives 
of curiosity. 

It seems impossible to believe that Christ is really received 
in Holy Communion and at the same time to refuse Him ado- 



THE SACRAMENTS 169 

ration. Luther says that whoever believes in the Real Pres- 
ence of Christ cannot without sin refuse to reverence the 
sacrament, but that those who do not adore it, are not to be 
branded as heretics. In fact, he says, it is better not to adore 
it (Wittenb., VII, 343 ff.)- The oldest Christian liturgy, 
that of St. James, requires the deacon to exclaim: "Let us 
adore and extol the living Lamb of God, ofifered upon the 
altar!'' Adoration follows as a matter of course from belief 
in the Real Presence of Christ, and, according to Catholic 
belief, this adoration is given to Christ, the Son of God, 
present under the form of bread. 

The Catholic Church has always understood the words 
"This is my Body" to mean that what appears to be bread 
is not really bread but the Body of Christ (St. Cyril of Jeru- 
salem), and if this is the case before the sacred hosts are 
consumed, Christ must remain also in those which have not 
been consumed as long as the outward form remains un- 
changed. Therefore He can be kept in the tabernacle to 
be taken as Viaticum to the dying, and exposed in the 
monstrance to the veneration of the faithful. The feast of 
Corpus Christi is the exultant expression of our joy and 
gratitude for the inestimable favour bestowed upon us by 
our Saviour in remaining permanently in the midst of His 
people. The feast was established long before there were 
any Protestants to be offended at it, and Catholics, when 
they celebrate it, have no idea of triumphing over others, 
nor of wounding, humiliating, and converting them. That 
Corpus Christi processions are occasions when Protestants are 
ill treated and insulted is one of those fictions to which non- 
Catholics adhere with most unreasonable tenacity, and we 
have never heard of their being exposed to outrages on this 
festival. No harm happened to them at Augsburg in 1530, 
but the Protestant princes by their words and actions in- 
sulted the emperor, who was himself carrying a lighted taper 
behind the Blessed Sacrament. 

We have no objection at all to the rule that Protestants are 
not to take part in our processions from motives of curiosity, 



I70 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

but we should like to suggest that, if by any chance they 
see or meet such a procession, they should conform to the 
ordinary rules of Doliteness and decency. 

The Sacrifice of the Mass 

Protestants do their utmost to misrepresent and abuse the Holy 
Sacrifice of the Mass, in order to inspire the yoimg, who are incapable 
of examining facts for themselves, with hatred and abhorrence of Cathol- 
icism. They say that originally the Mass was nothing but the usual 
pubhc celebration of Holy Commimion, in which the fruits of Christ's 
atoning death were perpetually apphed to the Christians present. This 
is still the Protestant doctrine, only instead of "Mass," they speak of 
the Lord's Supper. Roman CathoHcism, however, has made additions 
to this simple celebration of Holy Communion, and has thus changed 
it into a sacrifice of atonement, offered by the priests, although this is 
contrary to God's command and promises. 

It would be only fair to consider first the reason given by 
Luther for abolishing the Mass. He tells us that one night 
the devil appeared to him, and in fearful tones, curdling his 
very blood, declared that he, the learned Dr. Luther, had 
practised idolatry every day for fifteen years by saying Mass. 
Although Luther was quite aware that the devil was not 
speaking the truth, he abolished the Mass and priestly ordi- 
nation (Wittenb., Germ, ed., VII, 443; Jena, VT, 87; Walch, 
XIX, 1489). In spite of knowing his doctrines to be opposed 
to his own innermost convictions and to the unanimous be- 
lief of antiquity, he demanded unconditional acceptance of 
them, and expressed himself in language such as no Pope or 
Doctor of the Church had ever used. He said: "No one, 
since the world has existed, ever taught as I, Dr. Martin 
Luther, teach. I care nothing for all the texts of Scripture. 
I need no foundation for my doctrines, my will takes the 
place of all arguments. I, Dr. Martin Luther, will have it 
thus. I am wiser than all the rest of the world put to- 
gether'' (Wittenb., V, 107). 

We see, therefore, who abolished the Holy Sacrifice of the 
Mass, and to whom Luther ascribed his impulse to take this 
step. But who instituted the sacrifice? It existed from the 



THE SACRAMENTS 171 

very beginning, and no one doubted that it was of divine 
origin. No bold innovator ever came forward proclaiming, 
"The priest at the altar offers a true sacrifice of reconcilia- 
tion," nor was there any one who ventured to foist the idea 
of sacrifice upon the Church founded by Christ, in opposi- 
tion to the wall of her divine Founder. The bishops have al- 
ways expressed the feeling of the Church, and would promptly 
have resisted so important an innovation as the Mass, if it 
had really been superimposed upon the old Communion 
service; but there is no trace of any such thing in the whole 
history of the Church, and honest Protestants now acknowl- 
edge this to be the truth. Kahnis, for instance, writes {Die 
Kirche, 1865, p. 113), "The Eucharist is a sacrifice"; and 
Thiersch says, "As our knowledge of ancient Christianity has 
increased, it has become clearer to Protestant theologians, 
that in the very earliest ritual and in all ancient liturgies the 
Eucharist was invariably regarded as a sacrifice." Rodatz 
remarks: "As our Lord shed His blood upon the Cross in 
atonement for sins, it would be unreasonable to suppose that 
when He gives it in the Eucharist, He deprives it of its power 
to atone. The CathoHc doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacri- 
fice of atonement has frequently been unfairly criticized by 
Protestants." 

It is therefore a complete mistake to imagine that in the 
primitive Church there was simply a celebration of Holy 
Communion, to which at a later date Catholicism added 
the idea of sacrifice, contrary to the commandment and 
promise of God. The Catholic Church has at all times with 
unwavering loyalty adhered to the form of the Eucharist 
which our Lord Himself committed to the Apostles to be an 
imbloody sacrifice and the greatest proof of His love. 

Priesthood 

Protestants recognize no priesthood resembling the Levitical, and 
say that under the new dispensation Jesus Christ was the one High 
Priest; and as He procured us access to the Father, there is no longer 
any need of priests. Moreover, as even Bellarmine acknowledges, there 
is in the New Testament no mention of priests, but only of ministers, in 
the Christian Church. 



172 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

We might therefore say that there ought to be no super- 
intendents, missionaries, Sunday school teachers, etc., be- 
cause they are not mentioned in the New Testament. There 
are many allusions to bishops, presbyters, and deacons (i Tim. 
iv, 14; V, 22; 2 Tim. i, 6; Titus, i, 5; Actsxx, 28, etc.). If we 
really have access to the Father through Christ alone in the 
sense that all himian intermediation must be excluded, why 
should there be any ministers or preachers? Surely, their 
object is to bring men into contact with God. Whence do 
they derive their office, commission, and right to intrude 
between the soul desirous of salvation and the word of God? 
Lechler, a Protestant, expressed the opinion that if the Lu- 
theran doctrme of the universal priesthood were taken 
seriously, the absolute collapse of God's scheme of salvation 
would be the inevitable result {Die neutestamentliche Lehre 
vom heiligen Ami), 

Another question arises here: If priests do not come from 
Christ, where do they come from? Who was the first to take 
upon himself the office, and to proclaim to the amazed Church : 
^'I am your priest. I have power to offer Christ's Body 
and Blood in sacrifice"? If such a man ever had come for- 
ward, would there have been no outcry, no opposition? 
Would not men have died as martyrs rather than take part 
in a sacrifice that they recognized as contrary to the will of 
God? Does it not follow that the priesthood must always 
have been regarded as of divine institution? In the Apos- 
tolic age men certainly looked upon it thus, for otherwise why 
should Simon have offered money for the powers exercised 
by the Apostles, had he seen in them only what Protestants 
perceive, and not channels for imparting the Holy Ghost? (cf. 
Acts viii.) The Catholic Church now regards the priesthood 
in exactly the same light as St. Clement did in the first cen- 
tury and St. Justin in the second century. 

The Renewal of Christ^ s Sacrifice 

Protestants say that they refuse to admit that our Lord commanded 
the Apostles, and after them the priests of the Church, to sacrifice His 



THE SACRAMENTS 173 

Body and Blood again. Nowhere is it recorded in Holy Scripture 
that He ordered priests to succeed Him and sacrifice Him as an atone- 
ment, but we read that He offered Himself once on the Cross for our 
sins. The apologists of the Catholic Church are quite aware of this, 
and at the Council of Trent a proposal was made to declare that the 
current teaching about the Sacrifice of the Mass was based on tradi- 
tion alone, since the passages quoted from the Bible really prove 
nothing, and expose the Church to ridicule on the part of heretics. 

Protestants maintain that it is quite contrary to Holy Scripture 
to regard the Mass as a sacrifice, since the Bible teaches that Christ 
could not be offered again and again as a victim; nor coiild He suffer 
and die more than once, and yet this would be necessary if He were to 
continue to be offered up in sacrifice. Moreover, His atonement re- 
quires no subsequent action to be performed by priests, because it lasts 
forever (Hebr. x, 12, 14). What can be lacking in Christ's offering, or 
what can be added to it, if "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever 
them that are sanctified''? He gives us in Holy Communion the bene- 
fit of this oblation; what more is needed? Is not every attempt to 
supplement it derogatory to His one oblation, and a violation of His 
sacred rights? 

Protestants are careful to avoid making any suggestion 
as to the origin of the universal Catholic belief in the true, 
unbloody renewal in Holy Mass of Christ's sacrifice on the 
Cross. They are at liberty to say that they recognize no 
sacrifice subsequent to that offered by Christ Himself, but 
all their protestations and denials are powerless to affect the 
Mass. The refusal of a party of blind men to believe in the 
sun's existence could not affect its light. It is a fact that all 
Catholics believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and this faith 
must have originated somewhere. Did the Apostles receive 
it from their divine Master and transmit it to the Church? 
Did He in His infinite love desire His one oblation on the 
Cross to be presented forever in an unbloody manner in every 
place where His disciples met together? Was it His design to 
apply the graces, merited once for all by His death, to all men 
in every age by means of a visible sacrifice similar to that of 
the Cross? Did He intend the feast that He instituted on 
the eve of His Passion to be a sacrifice as well as food? If 
such were His intentions, it does not behoove His followers to 
ask, ''How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" (even 



174 TEE CBIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

Protestants profess to believe that He does this) or, ''How 
can He at the same time cause His flesh and blood to be a 
true sacrifice?'' All that they are required to do is thank- 
fully to accept and faithfully to avail themselves of this 
priceless benefit. 

If, however, the belief in the unbloody Sacrifice of the 
Mass did not originate with Christ and was not taught by His 
Apostles, it must have arisen at some unknown time and 
place, have been invented by some unauthorized person, and 
foisted upon the Church. Forthwith, without the small- 
est objection, all the clergy and laity must have accepted 
this new, unapostolic and unchristian doctrine, so that 
thenceforth in every place where hitherto only the Lord's 
Supper had been celebrated, the Sacrifice of the Mass took 
its place. Something like this must inevitably have occurred 
if the Holy Sacrifice were indeed unchristian and unapos- 
tolic. But we know with absolute certainty that ever since 
the first Eucharist was celebrated in the Cenaculum at 
Jerusalem it has been regarded as a sacrifice, and Luther 
was the first to deny it; we have already seen who insti- 
gated him to do this. 

Harnack, the Protestant theologian {Dogmengesck, I, 386), 
admits that in the primitive Church the prophecy of Mala- 
chias (i, 11) regarding the clean oblation which should be 
offered in every place after the Jewish sacrifices had passed 
away, was always referred to the Holy Eucharist. With re- 
gard to the prophecy in Ps. cix, Luther himself says (1556 
ed., VHI, 579 b): "The offering of bread and wine by Mel- 
chisedech represents the priesthood of Christ from that time 
to the end of the world, and shows that among Christians 
He offers the hidden Sacrament of the altar, viz., His 
sacred Body and precious Blood." 

''There are two torrents that amaze me," says Israel 
Zangwill, the noted Hebrew novehst; "the one is Niagara, 
and the other the outpouring of reverent prayer falling per- 
petually in the Roman Catholic Church. What, with Masses 
and the exposition of the Host, there is no day nor moment 



THE SACRAMENTS 175 

of the day in which the praises of God are not being sung 
somewhere — in noble churches, in dim crypts and under- 
ground chapels, in cells and oratories. Niagara is indifferent 
to spectators, and so the everlasting stream of prayer. As 
steadfastly and unremittingly as God sustains the universe, 
so steadfastly and unremittingly is He acknowledged, the 
human antiphony answering the divine strophe" {Italian 
Fantasies). 

The words of institution contain a clear allusion to the 
sacrificed body and the blood shed for the forgiveness of 
sins. Christ's Body and Blood possess the property of being 
sacrifices of atonement, even in the Holy Eucharist. 01s- 
hausen, a Protestant, commenting on i Cor. x, 18, says of St. 
Paul, that the Apostle regarded Communion also as a sacri- 
ficial banquet, and not merely as a commemoration of Christ's 
sacrifice on the Cross. With reference to the faith of the 
primitive Church, we may quote Dr. Grabe, a non-Catholic 
scholar, who acknowledges that Irenaeus and all the Fathers 
whose writings are still extant, both the contemporaries of 
the Apostles and their immediate successors, looked upon the 
Holy Eucharist as the sacrifice of the new dispensation. 
The whole Christian Church, not merely some local congre- 
gation, accepted this view as originating with Christ and 
the Apostles. 

We know, of course, that Christ does not again suffer or 
shed blood or die; in fact we call Holy Mass ''the unbloody 
sacrifice." Those who refuse simply to accept Christ's words 
and works as He uttered and performed them, are forced 
to make additions and improvements to them; but such is 
not the intention of the preacher who makes known the 
word of Christ, nor of any one who administers Baptism 
in His name, nor is it the intention of the priest celebrating 
Mass, for it is through his agency that Christ, our eternal 
High Priest, effects transubstantiation, sacrifices, and gives 
Holy Communion. 

On innumerable occasions has the Catholic Church most 
solemnly professed her faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross 



176 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

and its infinite value, as well as in Jesus Christ our only 
Mediator and Redeemer. She has never wavered in this 
faith, but still she is reproached with undervaluing our Lord's 
sacrifice and tampering with His rights. Yet she does noth- 
ing but represent anew in a mystical manner, according to 
Christ's will and commission, the sacrifice that He once ac- 
complished with the shedding of blood and that He is ever 
ready to accomplish. She does this in order that His sacri- 
fice of atonement for the whole world may be applied to each 
individual soul. Protestants say that Christ confers on us 
the benefits of His sacrifice, when we receive His Body and 
Blood in Holy Communion. This is quite true, but we re- 
ceive this Communion only from the altar of sacrifice in the 
Catholic Church. We recognize no other Communion than 
that which our Lord instituted; we do not venture to 
separate it from the living tradition through which it has 
come down to us, and we believe that there can be no Eucha- 
rist without priests, regularly ordained and commissioned, 
or without transubstantiation. 

The Office of the Priesthood 

As the reason why the papacy upholds this doctrine of the Holy 
Sacrifice, Protestants state that all the prestige and power and, to a 
great extent, also the revenues of the papacy and priesthood depend 
upon it. A priest with authority to celebrate Mass is a mediator and 
interpreter between God and man. His power transcends all human 
imagination and nothing on earth is comparable with it. "Who,'' 
they ask, "would not fear men who alone are able to give us access 
to God, and whose authority is supposed to extend beyond the 
grave?" Young Protestants are warned against yielding to the claims 
of the priesthood, and are taught that, as it was not instituted by 
God, it is of no avail. Stipends for Masses are supposed to bring 
in vast sums of money, and Protestants point with admiration to 
their own ministers, Uving in ApostoUc poverty, and contrast them 
with the Catholic priests who are represented as possessing boundless 
wealth. 

There is not much danger at the present day that the young 
will yield to extravagant claims of the priesthood; they are 
more likely to adopt the views of those who recognize no 



TEE SACRAMENTS 177 

distinctions in the civil and ecclesiastical order. Conse- 
quently men who still believe it to be God's will that such 
distinctions should exist, ought to be on their guard against 
encouraging anarchy by attacking a class of men respected, 
honoured, and loved by all good Catholics. 

Jesus Christ set the twelve Apostles over the rest of the 
faithful, and conferred upon St. Peter the highest position 
among them. He intrusted men, holding a special ofl&ce in 
the Church, with the task of guarding His grace and doctrine 
and communicating the same to individuals. Whoever has 
been admitted into the ranks of clergy by means of episcopal 
ordination, has a right to say with St. Paul, "Let a man so 
account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dis- 
pensers of the mysteries of God" (i Cor. iv, i), so great are 
the treasures confided to his care. St. Paul looked upon him- 
self as a mediator and interpreter between God and man, for 
he writes to the Corinthians {ib. 15, 16), "In Christ Jesus 
by the Gospel I have begotten you; wherefore I beseech 
you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." Appar- 
ently he opened to his converts a means of access to God. 

Has not every Protestant minister the intention of doing 
the same, although he cannot claim to be the officially ap- 
pointed steward of the mysteries of God? A Catholic priest 
is not, in the eyes of his people, an intruder between them 
and God, nor does he lead them to God by his personal quali- 
ties, his knowledge, or his goodness, but simply in his official 
capacity as the servant of God and His Church. He has 
not assumed this office, nor is he appointed to exercise func- 
tions of human origin, but, as the servant of Christ, to whom 
alone he is answerable, he uses the authority intrusted to 
him in the name of God. A Protestant minister expounds 
his own views or those taught him by his professors, and fre- 
quently, since he is a state official, his teaching is contrary 
to God's revelation. He is under civil control, and in some 
places his superior can alter the established religion, or in- 
vent a new one, if he chooses, so that a minister ceases to do 
anything more than teach morals, draw up statistics, or 



178 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

even act as an agent of the police (cf . Gebhardt, Thuringische 
Kirchengeschichte, 1882, part 2, p. 225). 

A Catholic priest holds a dignified and sacred office, but he 
and his people know in whose name and authority he exer- 
cises it, and for what end. Hence he must not misuse it in 
order to obtain '^prestige, power, and revenues." In the 
sight of God a priest is an unworthy servant to whose charge 
something sacred is intrusted, and by whom a strict account 
will have to be rendered. Fearful indeed will be his sentence, 
if he misuses his office and talents for his own advance- 
ment or for his temporal advantage. Protestants are fond of 
quoting the Roman Catechism, but they overlook a state- 
ment that it contains, to the effect that those who become 
priests solely to obtain food and clothing commit the griev- 
ous sin of sacrilege, although it is right that "they that serve 
the altar, partake with the altar" (i Cor. ix, 13). No man 
could commit a meaner or more contemptible sin than to 
become a priest through ambition or for the sake of money. 
He would deserve to be classed with Judas. It is undeniable 
that even among the servants of Christ there have always 
been abuses which have done much harm to the Church; 
but the Church as a whole cannot be held responsible for 
the faults of individual priests any more than the Apostles 
can be blamed for the sin of Judas. Are there no Protestant 
ministers who exercise their office as a means of acquiring 
honour or worldly goods? Did not Luther accept a barrel of 
wine and express most profound gratitude for it to Philip of 
Hesse, who sent it in return for his advice to marry two wives? 
(Lenz, Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps, p. 361, etc.) 

Mass and Sermon 

Protestants profess to be very uneasy regarding the danger to souls 
resulting from the Mass. It appears to them disastrous that by this 
human ordinance men are distracted from the study of God^s word. 
They say that if we only hear the words of the Mass (which, being in 
Latin, are uninteUigible to most people), we fulfil our obligation of hear- 
ing Mass on Sunday; we are not ordered but only advised to hear a 
sermon. 



THE SACRAMENTS 179 

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not and cannot be a 
human ordinance, for in that case it would never have been 
accepted by the Church in every age and place. The sacri- 
fice does not distract Catholics from the study of God's 
word, nor is it an obstacle preventing them from coming to 
God; it is, on the contrary, the best possible means of lead- 
ing them to Him if they unite themselves in spirit with the 
actions and prayers of the priest. Catholics are taught what 
the sacrifice is and what it signifies, and so they can follow it 
with love and devotion, believing that the oblation, once 
offered by Christ on the Cross, is renewed in an unbloody 
manner on the altar. Each is free to pray as he desires, in 
accordance with his personal needs; he is not bound to lis- 
ten to the priest, but may use his own words and participate 
in the sacrifice as his own feelings may prompt him, for 
wherever he is in the world he understands what is going 
on at Mass. 

It is false to say that by simply listening to the words of 
the Mass a Catholic fulfils all his obligations. The Church 
requires him to assist at the Holy Sacrifice with reverence 
and devotion; she says nothing about listening to words 
uttered by the priest. The sacrifice, and not the sermon, 
is the chief part of our public worship, but any Protestant 
minister must know that the preaching of God's word is by 
no means neglected in Catholic churches. The sermon cannot 
indeed take the place of the sacrifice but it has always ac- 
companied it; and to hear a sermon is a duty for all who can- 
not otherwise obtain the necessary instruction. Parish 
priests are boimd to preach, in accordance with God's com- 
mandment {Cone, Trid,, sess. 23, cap. i). It is not easy to 
see how Protestants are more strictly ordered to hear ser- 
mons than we are. 

The Fruits of the Mass 

Protestants bring very serious charges against Holy Mass itself. 
They say that according to CathoHc doctrine, on account of this sac- 
rifice offered by a priest, God forgives even terrible offences, sins are 
blotted out, punishment is remitted, satisfaction is made, and assist- 



i8o TBE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

ance is given to all the faithful, living and dead {Cone. Trid., XXII, 
c. 2). This is why hundreds of Masses are said for the souls of the 
wealthy and aristocratic, and even the poor do their best to pay for 
Masses for the dead. Then there is the use of privileged altars, i.e., 
altars on which the Pope has conferred the special privilege, that every 
time Mass is said at them a soul is released from purgatory. Protes- 
tants congratulate themselves upon avoiding the "broad way" of papal 
indulgences and Masses, and say that they bear in mind our Saviour's 
words: "Narrow is the gate, and strait is the way, that leadeth to life, 
and few there are that find it" (Matth. vii, 14). 

The statement given above is a misrepresentation and 
mutilation of the teaching of the Council of Trent which 
declared the Mass to be a sacrifice of atonement, because in 
it the same Christ is offered in an unbloody manner, who 
offered Himself and shed His Blood on the altar of the Cross. 
Therefore God forgives even terrible offences for the sake 
of Christ's sacrifice, not on account of anything done by the 
priest. The Council declared explicitly that mercy and par- 
don are bestowed upon those who draw near to God with sin- 
cerity and steadfast faith, with fear and reverence, and with 
humble and penitent hearts. Plainly, therefore, it is not 
enough simply to hear Mass, and it is unfair on the part of 
people professing to give an account of Catholic teaching to 
misrepresent it so grossly. To sinners who come to Him with 
the required dispositions, God, being reconciled by this sac- 
rifice, applies the merits gained once for all by Christ on 
Calvary, and in this way they obtain forgiveness of even 
grievous sins, since grace and the gift of true contrition are 
given them. Such is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and 
according to it, she requires far more of a sinner than Luther 
did, for he promised the most plenary indulgence imagina- 
ble, in life and in death, to all who have faith, and taught 
that faith alone without any penance whatever can deliver 
from the most infamous sins, both in this life and the next. 
Is Luther's gate narrower and his way more strait than that 
of the Catholic Church? Non-Catholics have a deeply 
rooted objection to Masses for the dead; yet they are as 
ancient as the Mass itself, and St. John Chrysostom traces 



THE SACRAMENTS i8i 

the memento of the faithful departed in the Mass back to 
the Apostles themselves {Horn, in Matth.). Tertullian speaks 
of the custom of offering Mass on the anniversary of a death 
as very ancient. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: ^^We believe 
that it affords great relief to the souls of the departed, if we 
pray for them whilst the holy and awful sacrifice offered for 
them rests upon the altar. We wreathe no garlands for 
them, but we offer Christ, sacrificed for our sins, when we 
make atonement on their behalf and our own to God, who 
loves mankind" {Catech, myst,, 5, 9). It is, therefore, a very 
ancient Christian custom to remember the dead at the altar; 
but God alone can decide how far each individual soul is 
capable and susceptible of grace. We are convinced, how- 
ever, that souls capable of being helped derive great assist- 
ance and consolation from the Holy Sacrifice, in which the 
Church offers our heavenly Father the most precious atone- 
ment for the sins of the whole world. The Holy Sacrifice is 
more efficacious than prayer, almsgiving, and other works 
of piety and love; but we cannot tell to what extent the 
sufferings of any individual soul are mitigated or shortened by 
a Mass said on its behalf. Nothing has been revealed or 
promised on the subject, and the Catholic Church has never 
taught that a soul is delivered from purgatory whenever 
Mass is said at a privileged altar; nor does she make the 
way to heaven easier for the rich than for the poor. How 
could she possibly do so when she recommends her children 
to practise evangelical poverty, and does her utmost to re- 
mind the rich and powerful of their duties and responsibili- 
ties? She regards rich and poor as bound by the same laws, 
and as treading the same path to heaven. The Mass said 
for a Pope or an emperor differs in no respect from that said 
for a beggar. It is by God's permission that the wealthy 
possess more abundant earthly resources, which they can em- 
ploy either in serving the world or in making to themselves 
friends who will receive them at the last day. But whoever 
has great possessions will be called upon to give an account of 
them, and the Church has never taught that money entitles 



i82 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

a man to sin in this world and gives him an advantage over 
his poorer brother even in the world to come. Rich and poor 
alike can be saved only through God's grace and their own 
faithful cooperation with the same, — there is no other way. 
Lazarus, the beggar, who endures his hard lot patiently for 
love of God, will in the next life enjoy greater consolation 
than Dives, who relies on prayers and Masses to be said 
after his death. It is one thing to desire to help the suffering 
souls by means of our sacrifices and intercession, and it is 
quite another to rely upon such things for our own happiness 
after death. Any one who does this, acts in an unchristian 
and uncatholic spirit. 

Communion under One Kind 

The last charge brought by Protestants against the Catholic admin- 
istration of the Holy Eucharist is that it withholds the consecrated 
chahce from the laity. Leo I and Gelasius, two very eminent bishops, 
condemned as heretics those who refused to receive the chalice, and 
Paschal II (died 1118) wrote that, with regard to the reception of our 
Lord's Body and Blood, it was not lawful to depart from Christ's own 
rule, for He gave both bread and wine to His disciples. The Roman 
party, predominant at the Council of Trent, insisted upon withdrawing 
the chalice from the laity, and it has never again been restored in spite 
of the requests of clergy and secular monarchs. The alleged reason for 
this withdrawal is that if the chahce were given to the laity, they might 
fall into the error of supposing themselves to be as worthy as the priests 
to receive the sacrament. This reason was suggested by Gerson at 
Constance. A Roman Catholic priest remarks however: "If a father 
were to assemble his household, take a cup and say to his sons, * Drink 
ye all of this,' he would not mean that the servants also were to drink 
of it. Hence Christ's words apply only to the priesthood, whilst serv- 
ants and handmaids must be satisfied with the bread." 

Some zealous CathoHcs, such as Mohler and Hirscher, demanded the 
restoration of the chahce. The despised laity of the present day are 
hardly aware of the deprivation that they suffer in consequence of the 
"great robbery," — for thus Gelasius describes the separation of the 
two parts of the Eucharist. 

Even in the primitive Church many people received Com- 
munion under one kind alone (Basil, ep. 93; TertulL, ad 
uxor., 2, 5), especially the sick, prisoners, children, hermits, 



THE SACRAMENTS 183 

and all who communicated in their own homes. In the 
fourth century the Manicheans came from Africa to Rome, 
where they mingled with the Catholics and even went with 
them to Holy Communion. They never received the con- 
secrated wine, because they regarded all wine as evil and 
abominated it. If at that time Communion in both kinds 
had been universal they could never have escaped detection, 
and it was in order to prevent them from approaching the 
altar that Leo I and Gelasius I commanded all to communi- 
cate under both species. When the latter Pope speaks of an 
intolerable sacrilege, he is not referring to Communion under 
one kind, but to the superstitious idea that no one ought to 
commimicate under the species of wine. 

The Council of Trent did not abandon the teaching of the 
primitive Church, nor did it condemn Communion under 
both kinds as sinful or unchristian, but it decided, for very 
adequate reasons, that henceforth Communion should be 
administered under one kind alone. The Catholic Church 
permitted the use of the chalice to nations that asked for 
it, provided they professed their belief (i) that reception 
under one kind was sufficient for all except the celebrant, 
(2) that Christ is present, whole and entire under one, as 
under two forms, (3) that the Church does not err in admin- 
istering the Holy Eucharist under one form only to all ex- 
cept the celebrant. But, as Pope Benedict XIV points out 
{de sacrif, miss,, I, n. 367 sq), it seems that the nations which 
demanded the chalice for the laity, did so either as a pretext 
for rebellion against the Church or because they mistakenly 
supposed Communion under one kind alone to be insufficient. 
In 1564, at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand I, Pius IV 
actually sanctioned giving the chalice to the laity, but the 
inhabitants of Catholic countries refused to avail themselves 
of this permission, and in other regions it gave rise to so 
many abuses that Pius V and Gregory XIV felt obliged to 
withdraw it (Wilmers, Lehrb. d. Relig., Ill, § 61). 

Nothing but the bitterest hostility could suggest that an 
overweening arrogance of the priesthood was the cause of the 



i84 THE CHIEF POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 

regulations now in force on the subject of Communion under 
one kind. Gerson is said to have remarked that if the chaHce 
were given to the laity they might fall into the error of sup- 
posing themselves to be as worthy as the priests to receive the 
sacrament. Gerson gives excellent reasons for Communion 
under one kind; the laity are not regarded as less worthy 
than the priests to receive the sacrament. Every priest before 
communicating strikes his breast, saying, '^Lord, I am not 
worthy," and when he communicates without saying Mass, 
he receives, like a layman, only a consecrated host. Gerson's 
words are misinterpreted, and his real meaning is that lay- 
men do not hold the same office in the Church as priests 
{Dignitas is not ^^ worthiness," but ^Mignity"). Still less 
suitable is the explanation that the laity are regarded as 
servants and handmaids, who must be satisfied with bread 
alone, whilst wine is given to the sons to drink. This is far 
from being the case; kings and princes, bishops and popes, 
children and beggars receive from the same holy table the 
same heavenly food, not bread and wine, but Christ, with 
His flesh and Blood, His Body and Soul, His divinity and 
humanity. If a Catholic priest ever made such an explana- 
tion, he can only have meant that Communion under both 
kinds is not required by the words of institution. 

The laity are not despised by the Church, who administers 
her sacraments for their sake as well as for that of the priests. 
They certainly are not aware of having suffered any great 
wrong in being '^robbed" of the consecrated chalice, because 
they have never been prevented from receiving the true Eu- 
charistic Communion which is infinitely more than any Prot- 
estant receives, for his minister can give him nothing but bread 
and wine; although if he be truly contrite for his sins, and 
communicate in sincere faith and love, he may to some ex- 
tent participate in the graces of a spiritual communion. He 
cannot really consume the Body and Blood of Christ, because 
there is no one authorized to do for him what Christ com- 
manded. If any one is so credulous as to believe that Luther 
gave back to the laity the chalice because they had been 



THE SACRAMENTS 185 

robbed of it by papal intrigue, and in restoring it was motived 
solely by zeal for souls, he should read the Formula of Mass 
and Communion for the Church in Wittenberg (WorkSy Jen. 
Ill, 338), Luther writes: ''No one is to maintain that they 
clamour for a Council, at which both species might be re- 
stored to them. We have the right of Christ . . . Yes, we 
assert that if a Council should order or permit this, we should 
then least of all accept both species; in fact we should show 
our contempt for the Council and its decision by receiving 
either one species, or none at all, but certainly not both, and 
we should utterly curse all who received both species on the 
authority of such a Council or its decision." Surely such a 
statement can be the outcome of nothing but the spirit of 
contradiction ! 

Impartial Protestants appreciate the Catholic reasons for 
what is called ''withholding the chalice.'' It is well known 
that a movement has been started in Protestant circles to 
prevent the harm resulting from giving the cup to the laity, 
and in some places proposals have been made for its com- 
plete withdrawal. 



hy, 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 If 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 288 020 4 



^^^^^^^^Hl 


p! ' P 
i 
ij 

1 ' 


'1 

i 

i 

i 

i 



Mtm 



'1 



1} li W 



iiili! 



iiiiiiijiilii 11 



I 



! ! ! 



1!!! 



Ii:!i:ii:li!ltlliiiiiiilil 



